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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by enumerating the returned fields (name, date, industry, record count, exposed categories, reference URL), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Two tight sentences: the core action and its filter options come first, followed by the return payload. No filler or repetition of the 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing return fields, and the filters cover the optional-parameter surface. The only real gap is routing guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema itself, and the description's mention of domain and breach_id filtering adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List breaches in the XposedOrNot catalog") plus its optional filter dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_recent_breaches or domain_breach_summary, which is the only thing keeping it from 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 explains what can be filtered but never says when to choose this tool over get_recent_breaches, domain_breach_summary, or check_email_breaches. An agent must infer from sibling names alone that this is the broad catalog-browse tool.

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