websex_hibp_password_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose something genuinely useful: the k-anonymity range API means the check is privacy-preserving rather than sending the full password. However, it says nothing about network egress, whether results are cached, rate limits, or the write/read nature of the call.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a credential-handling tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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, and the tool has only one parameter and low complexity. Still, the definition omits the input format expectation and any behavioral caveats for a tool that handles a secret, leaving it minimally viable rather than complete.

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 0% for the single "password" parameter, so the description must compensate. "Check a password" implies a plaintext string is accepted, which is the useful signal, but it never clarifies plaintext versus hash, even though sibling tools in this suite operate on hashes and confusion is plausible.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Check a password against HIBP") plus the mechanism ("k-anonymity range API"), which is enough to identify the tool at a glance. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from other credential-related siblings (e.g., hash_identifier, john), but no sibling performs breach lookups, so the gap is minor.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information. The mention of the k-anonymity API is a mechanism detail, not guidance about when this tool is the right choice versus a local hash lookup. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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