osint_hash_lookup

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'online databases' and 'multiple lookup services' implying network calls and external dependencies, but does not specify read-only nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on success/failure. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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?

Three sentences, but the first includes 'Menu ID: hash_lookup.' which is redundant with the tool name. The core purpose is in the second sentence. The description is short but contains some fluff; could be more streamlined.

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 the tool's complexity (external lookups, open schema, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool, what parameters are needed, or what to expect in the response. The reliance on describe_tool for full guidance leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 input schema is open (type: object, additionalProperties: true) with no defined parameters, and schema coverage is 100% empty. The description does not enumerate expected parameters (e.g., hash, type) nor explain their roles. It defers to describe_tool, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches hash values in online databases to find plaintext values, supporting multiple hash types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like crypto_hash_cracker or crypto_hash_identifier, though the mention of 'online databases' and 'multiple lookup services' implies a distinct approach.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It directs users to describe_tool for full guidance, but the description itself lacks context on prerequisites or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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