Check a URL for scams / phishing

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the return format: 'verdict (safe/suspicious/dangerous), severity, confidence, and a plain-English reason.' This covers the key behavioral aspects of a read-only analysis tool. However, it does not mention any limitations, latency, or side effects (though none are expected). Overall, it provides adequate behavioral context but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return details, followed by a concise usage recommendation. No redundant phrasing; every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format. It does not explain edge cases (e.g., invalid URL) or interpret severity/confidence, but these are minor for a single-purpose checker. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has complete coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'url', with a clear description and an example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since baseline for high coverage is 3, this score is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Ask pleamo') and resource ('URL'), and explicitly states the tool's purpose: to determine if a URL is likely a scam or phishing site. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like report_false_positive and get_status by its focus on URL safety assessment.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use before opening or recommending an unfamiliar link.' This gives clear context for usage. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the siblings are obviously different (report false positive, get status), so the guidance is sufficient.

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