stealer_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the return content (compromised machines with the email in browser credentials) and the API key requirement. Pagination is not discussed despite the cursor parameter.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the action and data source before the return semantics and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains what is returned (compromised machines with matching browser credentials). The only gap is pagination/cursor behavior, which the cursor parameter documents externally; the definition is otherwise complete for a 2-param search tool.

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 the schema already documents both 'email' and 'cursor' with formats and constraints. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Search), the exact resource (Hudson Rock Cavalier stealer logs), and the search axis (by email address), plus what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named siblings stealer_domain and stealer_ip, though the 'by email' phrasing implies the axis distinction.

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 tool's purpose implies when it applies (looking up stealer-log exposure for a specific email) and it states the HUDSONROCK_API_KEY prerequisite. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to the stealer_domain/stealer_ip siblings for other indicator types.

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