password_check

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

Describes k-anonymity privacy mechanism ('full hash never leaves tool'), read-only nature, no data storage, and rate limits. Adds significant context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) without contradiction.

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 front-load the core function and method, then cover usage, companions, limits, and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 single parameter, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and presence of output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, privacy, limitations, return shape, and sibling differentiation.

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%, already stating full SHA-1 hash format. Tool description adds context about k-anonymity but parameter meaning is already clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Verb 'check' and resource 'HIBP breach dataset' clearly stated, with method 'k-anonymity' and 5-char prefix explained. Differentiates from siblings like hash_lookup (malware) and email_disposable (throwaway mail).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for password breach audits' and lists companion OSINT tools with their purposes, helping agent choose. Includes rate limits, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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