bl_check_phishing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently reveals that the tool makes external queries to Spamhaus DBL, SURBL, and RDAP, and it states the output includes phishing indicators and a confidence score. This provides meaningful behavioral context, though it could additionally explain failure modes or caveats about external service availability.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every clause earns its place: the data sources, the output type, and the confidence range are all included with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's scope and return values ('phishing indicators and confidence level'). It could be more complete by specifying the structure of indicators or how confidence is calculated, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema's example, making the baseline score of 3 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 verb ('Check'), the resource ('a domain'), and the specific purpose ('phishing indicators'). It names the exact sources (Spamhaus DBL, SURBL phishing list, RDAP), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bl_check_dnsbl or domain_age, making its combined nature explicit.

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 usage for phishing-related domain checks and mentions the data sources, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as bl_check_surbl or domain_age. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the selection decision somewhat implicit.

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