check_url_safety

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions using URLScan.io and returns scan verdicts, malicious flag, score, and categories. However, it does not disclose if it is read-only, rate limits, or authentication needs. The information is adequate but incomplete.

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 extremely concise with one short paragraph and a single-line parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description's mention of return values (verdicts, malicious flag, score, categories) is sufficient. It lacks error handling or timeout info but covers the core functionality well for a simple tool.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter: 'URL (https://example.com/path) or bare domain (example.com)'. This adds meaningful format guidance beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 'Check a URL or domain for malicious activity via URLScan.io', specifying the verb (Check), resource (URL or domain), and purpose (malicious activity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_ip_reputation or check_exploit_availability.

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 URL/domain safety checks. While not explicitly stating when not to use or naming alternatives, the tool's purpose is clear enough given the sibling list covers different security checks. A score of 4 reflects implied but clear context.

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