check_domain_probes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the substance of the result (real-time per-node blocking status, blocking method and entity attribution), which is genuine behavioral content, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, freshness/latency of 'real-time' data, or how probe nodes are selected.

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, no filler, with the core action stated first and the detection capabilities listed after. Slightly list-heavy in the final sentence but every clause carries 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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool surfaces. It is nonetheless incomplete on routing (no sibling differentiation) and on operational context such as auth or data freshness, which matters given the dense overlapping sibling set.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, including examples (twitter.com, youtube.com, telegram.org). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Check') and resource ('Voidly probe results') scoped to a domain, and enumerates the data types returned (SNI blocking, DNS poisoning, cert fingerprint). However, it never distinguishes itself from near-name siblings like check_domain_blocked, get_domain_status, or get_domain_history, so an agent cannot tell which domain-check tool applies without opening schemas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite the sibling list containing at least four overlapping domain-checking tools (check_domain_blocked, get_domain_status, get_domain_history, check_service_accessibility). The agent is left to guess whether this is the raw probe view or the aggregated status view.

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