check_domain_blocked

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the epistemic nature of the answer (a country-level censorship profile with anomaly rate, affected services and blocking methods, i.e. inferred likelihood rather than live measurement) and contrasts it with real-time probing. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, cost, or whether results are cached/stale, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the capability and its data source come first, the disambiguation to the sibling second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back (anomaly rate, affected services, blocking methods) and warns that the result is a profile-based likelihood rather than a probe measurement. It stops just short of stating output shape or how to read the anomaly rate numerically.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema (domain examples, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, casing, or validity detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check censorship risk for a domain in a specific country') and immediately differentiates itself from the closest sibling by naming check_domain_probes and its real-time probe-based nature. An agent can distinguish this profile-based check from the probe-based check without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: when real-time domain-specific probing from Voidly probe nodes is wanted, use check_domain_probes instead. That is a clear usage context plus an alternative, though it doesn't address other plausible siblings such as get_domain_status, get_country_status, or check_service_accessibility, so no exclusion guidance for those.

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