security_safe_browsing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool calls Google's external API, but it does not mention whether URL data is transmitted externally, whether authentication or rate limits apply, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant words states the action, target, and purpose. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The core purpose and required input are clear enough for basic invocation, but there is no output schema or return-value description, no mention of prerequisite auth, and no guidance on optional parameter behavior. It is minimally viable but leaves meaningful 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 description coverage is low at 33%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by mapping 'malware, phishing, and other threats' to the threatTypes concept, but it adds no meaning for platformTypes and does not clarify how the optional filters interact with the URL check.

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 states a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('URLs against Google Safe Browsing API'), with concrete threat categories. This clearly differentiates it from sibling security tools like security_ssl_analyze and security_headers_check, which focus on site configuration rather than URL reputation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when Safe Browsing is the right check, when it is not, or how it compares to related security tools.

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