get_fraudulent_bank_scams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Get information" and "reported to HKMA" do imply a read-only, externally-sourced dataset with some provenance, but there is no disclosure of data freshness/update cadence, authentication needs, or result volume — meaningful gaps for an advisory/alert feed.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it could spend one more clause on routing or scope without becoming bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has only one optional parameter. For a simple read-only lookup the description is sufficient, with only usage context and data currency left implicit.

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?

There is a single optional lang parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an enum, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about language behavior, which is acceptable given the coverage baseline of 3.

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 names a specific resource (fraudulent bank websites and phishing scams reported to HKMA) and a clear retrieval verb. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_business_stats or get_atm_locations, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what triggers it, or what alternatives exist. The agent must infer usage purely from the topic name.

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