scan_url

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the async nature ('returns an analysis_id immediately'), polling cadence (every 5 seconds), and possible verdicts. However, it doesn't mention error scenarios or rate limits.

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 concise with 3-4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and async behavior. Each sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly improved by grouping related information.

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 scan tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, async behavior, polling, verdicts, usage context, and auth requirements. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'url' parameter. The tool description adds context about the scan's purpose but doesn't provide new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already includes.

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 'Submit a URL for malware and phishing analysis across 70+ security engines,' specifying the verb, resource, and purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like check_scan_result and scan_file by emphasizing URL scanning and async analysis.

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 usage context: 'Use before navigating to an unfamiliar URL or when a user forwards a suspicious link.' It also mentions polling instructions and API key requirements, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools.

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