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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying sources (LeakCheck and dork pack), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, whether the lookup is read-only, or what happens when no breach data is found.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a simple lookup tool, though its terseness contributes to gaps in parameter and behavioral detail.

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, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description does not provide enough for an agent to confidently call the tool with the right input or understand its operational constraints.

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 0% description coverage and one parameter, q, which is completely undocumented. The description implies the input is a phone number but does not state the expected format or what q accepts, leaving the agent to guess.

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 specific verb and resource: checking a phone number against breaches and pastes via LeakCheck and a dork pack. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like leakcheck, breachsearch, or phone_deep.

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 implies usage context by naming the data sources and the phone-focused check, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent can infer the use case but is not directed away from overlapping tools.

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