Password Check

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false; description adds that no data is stored and the full hash never leaves the tool, reinforcing the privacy-preserving k-anonymity approach. Rate limits also disclosed.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose and method, and includes usage guidance, companion tools, rate limits, and return format—all in a few sentences with no superfluous content.

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 single-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers what it does, how it works, when to use it, and what it returns, leaving no significant gaps.

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 covers the sole parameter (sha1_hash) with 100% documentation. Description adds behavioral nuance (only 5-char prefix used) that helps the agent understand how the parameter is processed, adding extra context.

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 a SHA-1 hash appears in the HIBP breach dataset using k-anonymity (5-char prefix). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hash_lookup by specifying different namespaces.

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 mentions use for password breach audits, read-only nature, and lists companion tools (hash_lookup, email_disposable, username_lookup) as alternatives for different investigation areas. Rate limits are provided.

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