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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'aggregate' without disclosing input requirements, output behavior, or limitations. The agent cannot infer what the tool does with the query or what result format to expect.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it essentially restates the tool title ('Breach Aggregator: Aggregate breach databases') with only a few examples added. It is not well-structured for a tool that likely requires input clarifications.

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 tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, but the description omits what the input should be and how the aggregation works. It lacks essential context for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially given the crowded sibling space.

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 defines a single parameter 'q' with no description, and the description never mentions it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to explain what 'q' represents (e.g., email, username, domain). This is a complete gap.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Aggregate breach databases' with specific examples (XposedOrNot, LeakCheck). It distinguishes itself from single-source breach tools, though not from other aggregate tools like comb_search or leaklookup among 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many breach-related siblings (breachsearch, leakcheck, comb_search), the absence of any comparison or conditions leaves the agent without direction for selection.

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