phishing_check

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world. Description adds crucial details: historical records forever, stale detection (url_count > 0 vs urls_online == 0), rate limits, and specific conditions for is_malicious. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single factual paragraph, dense but not verbose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly better structured (e.g., bullet points). Still efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with conditional logic and multiple output fields, the description fully explains the return object, whether is_malicious is active vs stale, and how to interpret threat_level. Output schema exists but description adds essential context.

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?

Input schema has 1 parameter (url) with a comprehensive description. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool queries URLhaus for a specific URL and its host, and explains the logic for is_malicious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like threat_intel and mentions companion tools, providing a clear purpose.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use for URL-level threat assessment; use threat_intel for domain-level checks.' Also lists companion threat-investigation tools, giving clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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