fofa_host_profile

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds an access caveat (registered users lack the Host API) and input scope. This is meaningful non-obvious context beyond the schema and annotations, though it doesn't discuss rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the access caveat. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers what, target, and access constraints, and an output schema exists so return values don't need restating. The main gap is the unexplained `detail` parameter and lack of a named fallback for non-privileged users.

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 description clarifies that `host` accepts either an IP or DNS name, which is not in the schema. However, the `detail` boolean is never explained, and schema description coverage is 0%, leaving one of two parameters semantically opaque.

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 ('Get'), a precise resource ('FOFA Host aggregation'), and a cardinality constraint ('one IP or DNS name'), which clearly sets it apart from sibling search, icon, and stats tools.

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?

Gives a clear access exclusion ('Registered users have no Host API') and the target condition ('for one IP or DNS name'). It does not name an explicit alternative such as fofa_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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