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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only identifies the dataset and general purpose, without disclosing input expectations, whether results are raw credentials, API requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The read-only nature is implied by 'search' but never stated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The opening 'Breach Directory:' repeats the title, but the rest adds value by naming the exact dataset and purpose.

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 definition is too thin for reliable invocation: the q parameter semantics are unclear, there are no annotations, and there is no guidance among the many breach-search siblings. The source and purpose are identified, which prevents a score of 1, but an agent still lacks essential usage context.

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 only parameter 'q' is an undocumented string with 0% schema coverage. The description does not state whether q expects an email, username, domain, or full search term, and only weakly implies a credential-related query through the phrase 'credential exposure.'

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 names a specific resource ('ProxyNova COMB dataset') and purpose ('search for credential exposure'), which is clear enough to convey what the tool operates on. It doesn't fully differentiate it from closely related breach tools like comb_search or breachsearch, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many breach-related siblings, an agent has no explicit basis for selecting this one over comb_search, leakcheck, breachsearch, or breach_aggregator.

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