exposure_check_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the output is aggregates only, that passwords/logins/devices/IPs are never returned, that the address is echoed only as SHA-256, plus the cost and payment rail. Missing only secondary traits like rate limits or error/retry behavior.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then layers scope, privacy constraints, and pricing in a compact two-clause structure. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 2-param read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned and what is deliberately excluded, plus cost and authorization. Only the return-value shape/format is left unspecified, which is minor here.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the authorization notion already present on 'email'. The confirmNewPurchase repurchase semantics live entirely in the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Leak and infostealer exposure of one e-mail address') and enumerates what the result covers (infection counts, leak records/sources). The 'one e-mail address' scoping implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling exposure_check (domain variant), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives an authorization precondition ('addresses you own or are authorised to check') and a price (0.05 USDC on Base via x402), which is useful context. However it offers no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to exposure_check or other search tools, so routing is left to inference.

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