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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a useful behavioral trait: the scan is for 'historically exposed' content, implying it pulls from archived snapshots rather than actively probing live targets. However, it does not disclose output shape, whether results are limited to certain file types, or any rate-limit or authentication considerations.

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 the key action and target front-loaded. The only minor redundancy is repeating 'Wayback Leak Scan' from the title, which costs little.

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 only one parameter and an output schema, but the description leaves the input format ambiguous and offers no examples or result expectations. For a scanning tool with no annotations, more context is needed for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what should be placed in q (domain, URL pattern, keyword, etc.). Mentioning '.env/config/secrets' hints at the target content but does not compensate for the completely undocumented parameter.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('Wayback Machine'), and a concrete target scope ('historically exposed .env/config/secrets'). The title and phrase 'Leak Scan' give it an identity distinct from generic wayback tools, even though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of closely related siblings such as wayback, cdxwayback, or archiveorg. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection conditions are provided, so an agent must infer the intended use case from the name alone.

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