SpiderFoot scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it detects target type automatically, groups results by event type, and discloses time expectations (minutes vs 30+ minutes). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the time guidance is efficiently packed into the final sentence.

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 tool with 2 params, 100% schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what happens during the scan, how results are organized, and time expectations. It doesn't mention output format, but with no output schema and the annotations covering safety, this is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds the time-duration context for use_case values, which is useful, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool runs a SpiderFoot scan, detects target type, and runs matching modules. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on SpiderFoot's multi-type target scanning rather than a single search type.

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 explains the use_case options and their time implications, giving an agent context on when to choose 'passive' vs 'all'. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the target-type flexibility and scan duration guidance provide clear usage context.

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