check_service_accessibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning 'blocking status, method, and confidence' and implies real-time checking. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. Basic transparency is provided.

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 succinct: two sentences plus examples. It is front-loaded with the core action and quickly provides illustrative queries. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description hints at return fields (blocking status, method, confidence). For a simple check tool, this is reasonably complete, though more detail on the output format would improve it. The examples help contextualize the tool's use.

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. The description adds value by providing example inputs (e.g., 'twitter.com', 'CN') that clarify usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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: checking accessibility of a service/domain in a specific country. It provides example questions that illustrate the use case. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like check_domain_blocked.

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 when to use the tool (to check current accessibility in a country) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. The context is implied through examples.

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