email_recon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'across free OSINT sources,' indicating external lookups, and the verb 'check' suggests a read-only action, but it fails to disclose the return format, failure behavior, or any operational constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant transparency gaps for a recon tool with no other annotation support.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action and scope, ensuring the agent can quickly grasp the tool's purpose. Every word contributes value, making it an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 an ambiguous parameter. The description covers the high-level purpose but misses critical details such as what 'registered' means in terms of output (e.g., boolean, list of sources) and how to provide the input email (the 'selector' parameter). Given the setup, the description is too sparse for confident tool invocation, making it incomplete for the agent's needs.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter 'selector' is completely undocumented. The description mentions 'email' but does not explicitly state that 'selector' should be the email address, leaving the parameter ambiguous. Since the schema provides no help, the description needed to clarify the mapping between 'selector' and the email address, which it fails to do.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource (whether an email is registered) and the scope (across free OSINT sources). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like username_sweep or phone_lookup, which focus on different identifiers. The title and description align, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.

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 implies the tool should be used when you have an email address and need to check its registration status, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives. There are no stated exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, making the usage context implied rather than clearly stated.

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