check_abuse

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states it checks the database and returns abuse status/details, but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or whether it's read-only. The description is minimal, providing no behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, which is concise and to the point. It front-loads the core purpose and then specifies the output. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details about the output format or any error conditions. It mentions 'returns whether abuse has been reported and any details' but does not specify the structure. For a simple lookup tool, this is minimally complete, but it could be more informative about the returned data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'agent', describing it as 'Package name or agent identifier to check'. The description adds context by explaining the purpose of the parameter (used to check against the abuse database) and the return indicates it relates to abuse reports. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, the description adds marginal value but clarifies the domain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific verb 'Check' and resource 'abuse database', indicating that the tool looks up a package or agent against the KYA abuse database. It distinguishes itself from siblings like check_exposure by specifying the database type and the returned information (whether abuse was reported and details).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you want to know if a package/agent is in the abuse database) but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Siblings like check_exposure or get_verdict might be used for related but different checks, but no comparison is made.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.