fofa_exposure_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait, that the scan portion is simulated rather than live, but says nothing about cost, data freshness, or how the three result sections relate.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, which is good, but the content is thin for the tool's complexity and the mid-sentence language switch to 抽样 makes the rule harder to parse. Output enumeration is also wasted effort given an output schema exists.

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 seven parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage routing among seven-plus FOFA siblings, the definition is far too sparse. The output schema means return values need not be described, yet the description spends its first clause on exactly that while leaving inputs unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only clarifies the sample flag (use it when the user asked for 抽样) and leaves product, country, city, size, after and max_records completely undefined in both schema and prose.

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 says the tool returns 'the full update-time result, port stats and a simulated scan', which hints at an aggregate exposure review, but the verb 'Return' is weak and it never states the resource being scoped (a product's exposed assets). Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like fofa_search or fofa_stats, so an agent must infer its role from the name alone.

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 only guidance is a parameter-level rule ('Set sample only when the user asked for 抽样'); there is no statement of when this review tool is preferable to fofa_search, fofa_stats or fofa_host_profile, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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