check_phishing_domain

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose response format, rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the tool is read-only. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, the description must compensate but fails entirely.

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?

Extremely short but under-specified. The description is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, making it less useful. Conciseness is not just brevity; the description must earn its place by being informative.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description omits critical details like return type (boolean, list, object) and any error conditions. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without guessing.

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%. The description does not elaborate on the 'domain' parameter beyond its name. No example, format, or constraints are given, leaving the agent to guess the expected input.

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 'Known phishing / scam domains + contracts.' is a fragment that does not specify the action (e.g., 'checks if a domain is known as phishing'). It leaves ambiguity whether the tool returns a list or verifies a single domain. Title is null, adding no clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like scan_contract or check_rugpull_risk. The description does not mention any prerequisites or contextual triggers.

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