Malware & Phishing Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns a safe score (0-100) and detailed warnings, which is useful but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 three sentences with no wasted words: function, output, use case. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Ideal for quick scanning.

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 simple input (one required domain string) and presence of an output schema, the description, schema, and annotations together provide complete context. It explains input, output, and when to use. No gaps.

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%, and the schema description already explains the domain parameter and return value. The tool description reinforces the same information but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks if a domain is associated with malware, phishing, or other threats, and returns a safe score and warnings. It distinguishes from siblings like security.threatintel.infrastructure by focusing on domain-based threat detection, and the title 'Malware & Phishing Check' is specific.

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 explicitly recommends use for 'URL safety verification before agent navigation,' providing clear context. While it does not list exclusions or alternatives, the sibling tools (e.g., security.threatintel.reputation) imply different scopes, but no explicit when-not-to-use is given.

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