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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the check is against known data breaches via HIBP and expects a SHA-1 hash, but it does not describe rate limits, privacy behavior, authentication, or the shape of the returned result.

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 tightly written sentence with no filler, and the key method and input expectation are front-loaded.

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 simple, one-parameter, read-only breach-check tool, the description plus the fully covered schema and annotations are mostly sufficient. The main remaining gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not explain whether the result is a boolean, a breach count, or another payload.

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 sole parameter is fully documented in the schema as a SHA-1 hash of 40 hex characters. The description repeats the SHA-1 requirement but adds no syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema already provides, so the high schema coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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: check a password hash for exposure in known breaches via HIBP. It is easy to identify, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling check_password_range.

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 the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, especially the closely related check_password_range. There are no exclusions or conditions for choosing this lookup.

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