get_url_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the caching behavior (returns cached report if available) and the fallback to submission with waiting. This is important for an agent to understand latency expectations. No information about authentication or rate limits is given, but the key behavioral trait of caching is covered.

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: the first states the comprehensive output, the second explains the caching and submission behavior. Every word adds value, no redundancy, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description provides a detailed list of what the report contains (security scan, communicating files, contacted domains/IPs, downloaded files, redirects, threat actors). It also explains the caching mechanism. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and behavior.

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% for the single parameter 'url', which is described as 'The URL to analyze' with a URI format. The description does not add additional constraints or details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 retrieves a comprehensive URL analysis report including security scan results and key relationships. It identifies the resource (URL) and the action (get report), but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_url_relationship, which also provides URL-related data. However, the specific relationship types listed are unique to this tool among the siblings.

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 explains that the tool returns cached results when available, otherwise submits and waits. This gives implicit guidance on when to expect immediate results vs. delays. However, it does not compare to alternative siblings or specify when to use this tool over others, such as get_url_relationship.

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