find_origin_candidates

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

Clearly states that no IP traffic is sent, indicating passive operation. However, with no annotations, the description could disclose more about required permissions or side effects beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with key action and constraints, no wasted words.

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?

Lacks explanation of what 'unverified origin IP candidates' entails and how 'in-scope DNS hints' are determined. Though output schema exists, context for input parameters and overall workflow is incomplete.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not elaborate on any of the three parameters, leaving their meaning to be inferred from names only.

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's purpose: finding unverified origin IP candidates using DNS hints and optional historical DNS. It is specific and differentiates from sibling 'verify_origin_candidate'.

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 implies usage context (before verification) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. No 'when not to use' statements.

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