island_list_compromised_credentials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently exposes a known limitation: offset pagination is unreliable in practice and should be treated as best-effort. It also discloses the detection mechanism and default window behavior, giving the agent realistic expectations beyond what the schema conveys.

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, each purposeful: the first states the core action and ordering, the second explains the time-window parameters, and the third gives a critical caveat. No filler or redundancy; the most important warning is placed last but is clearly highlighted.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, input semantics, default behavior, and a known pitfall. It omits details about the return structure, but that is typically inferable from the tool name and 'list' action. The pagination warning is especially valuable for correct usage.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (each parameter already has a description), the description adds extra meaning: it explains that omitting start/end triggers a server-side default window, and it characterizes limit/offset as best-effort due to pagination issues. This goes beyond the schema's straightforward definitions.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a distinct resource ('credentials... compromised'), and adds context (dark-web/breach-corpus matching) and ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resource types like admin actions, audit events, or devices.

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?

It provides clear parameter-usage guidance: using start/end to bound the window and omitting both for the server-side default. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool vs. siblings; the resource type makes that implicit, but exclusions are not articulated.

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