bevigil_get_urls

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add behavioral context beyond safety. It does so by noting results 'may include internal/staging endpoints that are not publicly indexed by search engines,' which is a meaningful data-quality caveat. It also states the return shape as a list of full URLs, adding value without contradicting annotations.

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 four short sentences, each adding distinct value: what the tool retrieves, where the data comes from, the use case, the return type, and a caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is complete. It identifies the input domain, explains the result is a list of full URLs, and adds an important caveat about internal/staging endpoints. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers return semantics without needing to repeat schema pagination fields.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for domain, limit, and offset already embedded in the input schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level details, so it provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the full burden.

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-resource pairing ('Get URLs associated with a domain') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings focused on hosts, subdomains, S3 buckets, app packages, and wordlists. It also adds provenance ('as discovered from mobile application analysis') and clarifies the output is full URLs, making the purpose immediately unambiguous.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Useful for finding API endpoints, web paths, and resources referenced by apps.' This is explicit context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it. That places it just below the top tier because exclusions and sibling comparisons are absent.

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