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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it discloses nothing. It does not state whether the tool scans for leaks, checks a password against a breach database, or performs an action on the password. Security or side effects are completely unaddressed.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no structure or front-loaded information, just a restatement of the name.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a two-parameter input schema with generic descriptions. The description must explain purpose, invocation, and expected behavior, but it provides none of this. It is completely inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 descriptions are generic placeholders ('Input to process', 'Password to process'), and the description adds no clarification about which parameter is required or how they relate. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but the schema itself is uninformative and the description does not compensate. The agent is left guessing whether 'input' is the password to check or something else.

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 'Password Leak: Password Leak' repeats the tool name without stating a verb, resource, or behavior. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like x402-haveibeenpwned or x402-password-strength. This is a tautology.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot decide between this and related tools such as x402-haveibeenpwned.

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