assess_indicator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates recent scans, computes specific statistics (malicious count, verdict scores, recurring tags/brands, hosting spread), and warns to read the caveats field before acting. This gives meaningful insight into the tool's behavior beyond a simple 'assess' action.

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 tightly written with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then adds useful detail about the computed stats and concludes with an important caveat warning – every sentence contributes.

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?

The tool is moderately complex, and the description covers its core analysis, accepted indicator types, and the caveats field. However, it omits explanation of the 'days' parameter, which is a minor gap given the output schema exists and the rest is well described.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that the indicator parameter accepts domains, IPs, URLs, or SHA-256 hashes, but does not mention the 'days' parameter or its default of 180. Since the description partially compensates but leaves 'days' undocumented, a 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 opens with a specific verb ('Build a reputation picture') and clearly scopes the resource to domains, IPs, URLs, or hashes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from passthrough tools by stating it provides aggregated analysis, setting it apart from scan lookup siblings.

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 when an aggregated reputation assessment is needed, contrasting with raw passthrough. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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