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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It gives the source and the 'no key' note, but does not explain input behavior, error cases, rate limits, or what the returned data represents beyond three vague categories. This is minimal transparency for a breach-checking 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, compact sentence with useful identifiers front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it sacrifices some necessary detail for brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, which reduces the burden of describing return values, and the description does name three output categories. However, with no parameter documentation and no usage context, an agent may not be able to correctly invoke it without further inference.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the parameter 'q' has no description. The tool description mentions 'Email' and 'breach exposure' but never explicitly states that 'q' is the email address to query, nor does it specify expected format (e.g., plain email string). The description fails to compensate for the empty schema.

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 identifies the resource (XposedOrNot breach data) and the action (checking email breach exposure), and lists specific output categories (breach names, data types, paste hits). This distinguishes it from generic email tools like emailrep or emailformat, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hibp_email, paste_email, or leaklookup. The only usage hint is 'no key,' which notes a prerequisite but doesn't help select among similar breach-checking tools.

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