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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful fact (the external ProxyNova free API), but does not disclose rate limits, query semantics, access constraints, or whether results contain raw credentials. This is a significant gap for a breach-search tool.

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 'via ProxyNova free API' addendum is useful, though 'COMB Credential Search' overlaps somewhat with the tool title.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations, this is minimally informative at best. It omits parameter semantics, usage boundaries relative to sibling breach tools, and API behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but does not compensate for the other missing 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 schema has a single 'q' parameter with a 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. The phrase 'Credential Search' weakly implies q is a credential query, but the agent is left guessing whether q expects an email, username, domain, or hash.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('COMB breach compilation'), and further identifies the data source as ProxyNova's free API. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many credential/breach sibling tools, but the COMB/ProxyNova framing gives it a distinct identity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools such as breachsearch, breachdb, leakcheck, or credential_stuffing. The description implies its purpose but leaves tool selection entirely to the agent.

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