Find PhishFort Incident By Subject

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral note that the subject parameter is URL-encoded, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as what happens if no incident is found (e.g., returns null vs. error), but the annotations already cover the safety profile well.

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 consists of two succinct sentences with no filler. It directly states the purpose and a key encoding detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 has low complexity (1 param, required) and an output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, the description lacks guidance on usage context and does not mention error conditions or edge cases, making it minimally complete for effective agent invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning by stating that the subject parameter can accept a URL, domain, or subject value and that it should be URL-encoded. This provides some clarity beyond the schema, but the description is still vague about the exact format expected.

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 the verb 'Find' and the resource 'incident', and specifies the search criteria (URL, domain, or subject value). However, it mentions multiple criteria while the schema only defines a single 'subject' parameter, which could cause confusion about how to provide URL or domain values.

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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'phishfort_list_incidents' or 'phishfort_get_incident'. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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