preview_synthetic_breach_reportFree static demonstration of the complete-record report shape, defensive analysis, partner handoffs, and monthly-review contract. Contains no real owner or breach data and performs no lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds critical context beyond annotations: it contains no real owner or breach data, performs no lookup, and is a 'free static demonstration.' This fully discloses the tool's non-functional nature, giving the agent confidence it is safe and side-effect-free.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every phrase adds value. No redundant or vague wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: it explains what the tool demonstrates, that it contains synthetic data, and that it performs no lookup. This is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any missing parameter information.
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 is a 'free static demonstration of the complete-record report shape' and lists what it covers (defensive analysis, partner handoffs, monthly-review contract). It explicitly notes it contains no real data and performs no lookup, distinguishing it from siblings like get_breach_report.
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 makes it clear this is a static, synthetic preview rather than a real lookup, so the agent can infer it's for format inspection. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_breach_report, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct role in the workflow: decision aid, verification lifecycle, payment preparation, report retrieval, and demo. No two tools appear to perform the same action, and the descriptions clearly differentiate free vs. paid, synthetic vs. real, and pending vs. verified states.
All tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_owner_email_verification, get_breach_report, revoke_owner_email_authorization). The verbs (assess, create, get, prepare, preview, revoke, verify) are predictable and match the action taken.
8 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. The count is proportional to the complexity of the domain, covering the full owner-protection workflow without excessive granularity or missing essential phases.
The toolset covers the complete lifecycle from need assessment through email verification, paid check preparation, and report retrieval, plus revoke and preview. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to query the status of an in-progress paid scan, which could leave agents polling indefinitely or assuming the report is ready when it is not.