inspectPhishingUrl

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuine context beyond them: the specific detection targets (homograph spoofing, Angel/Pink/Inferno drainer scripts, DOM prompt injections) and the cost signal of 0.02 USDC on Base. It omits rate limits and any latency/coverage caveats.

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 detection list is effectively stated twice ('Angel/Pink/Inferno drainer scripts' then 'drainer kits & DOM traps'), and 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' is promotional filler. The price line earns its place, but the paragraph is longer than its information content warrants.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, yet 'Returns verified safety metrics' is vague and then restates the purpose rather than describing the shape of the result. For a paid, single-param audit tool, an agent is left guessing what it will actually receive back.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'url' parameter is fully documented as 'URL or domain to inspect'. The description adds no format, scheme, or normalization guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (audits) and resources (target URLs, API endpoints, Web3 dApp domains) with the exact threat classes covered (IDN homograph spoofing, drainer kits, DOM injections). It is distinguishable from siblings like auditUrlAgentReadiness, though the 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' framing and later restatement add noise rather than precision.

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?

It offers a 'Call this tool when...' clause, but the listed triggers (auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, validating DEX liquidity) are handled by other sibling tools such as checkSmartContractHoneypot, analyzeEvmWallet, and inspectUniswapPoolState. This is misleading routing guidance for a tool whose actual scope is URL/domain inspection.

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