tool_check_breach_exposure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states outputs (breach count, risk level, etc.) and requires an API key, but lacks information on rate limits, error handling, or potential consequences like API costs. For an external API-dependent tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise with three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then lists outputs, then notes the API key requirement. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured with bullet points.

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?

Given a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers basics. However, it lacks details on expected return format when no breach is found, error scenarios, or rate limits. Adequate but not fully complete for an external API tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'email: Email address to check for breach exposure.' This clarifies the parameter type but does not provide format/validation details, leaving agents with inadequate guidance.

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 clearly states the tool checks if an email address has been exposed in known data breaches using HaveIBeenPwned. This differentiates it from sibling tools like tool_check_email_risk which likely checks other risk factors.

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 mentions the requirement of HIBP_API_KEY but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like tool_check_email_risk or tool_calculate_composite_risk. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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