get_url_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions 'Report with insights about the URL' without detailing what kind of insights, whether the operation is read-only, or any limitations. This is minimal disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded with a clear purpose. The Args/Returns structure is neat, though the Args section largely repeats the schema. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given there is an output schema, the return description is sufficient. However, for a tool with no annotations, the description could be more complete by explaining the scope of the report or usage notes. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It states 'url (required): URL to analyse,' which adds a basic description but lacks format, examples, or constraints. The value added is minimal.

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 'Get a comprehensive URL analysis report from Google Threat Intelligence.', which specifies both the action (get) and the resource (URL analysis report). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on domains, files, or IP addresses.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify whether this tool is preferred over 'get_domain_report' for URLs that are also associated with domains, or any prerequisites.

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