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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses data sources, indexation-vs-incident date semantics, nesting rules, daily rebuild cadence, idempotence within a day, input normalization behavior, and auth requirements. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence carries necessary behavioral or semantic information. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by critical caveats, and no sentence is redundant or filler.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and an output schema, the tool has nontrivial semantics. The description covers freshness, date interpretation, aggregation nesting, idempotence, input normalization, and authentication status, leaving no significant gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema only says 'Domain to check, e.g. example.com,' so the description adds substantial meaning by explaining that URLs and punycode IDNs are accepted and normalized to the registrable domain. This goes well beyond the schema and is essential for correct input handling.

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 precisely that the tool returns credential-exposure counters for a domain and explicitly excludes credential values or per-account detail. This clearly distinguishes its scope from any value-returning alternative, and the domain/input normalization is specified.

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?

Although no sibling tools are present, the description gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use for counts only, not for credential details; treat months/weeks as indexation dates; never sum nested counters; and do not re-query within the same day. It also states free, no-auth usage conditions.

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