scan_dark_web

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

No annotations or output schema are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It confirms the operation and endpoint but fails to disclose whether this scan is read-only, whether it can initiate external/exposed operations, whether results are returned immediately, or if auth is required. For a scan tool, this leaves important behavioral gaps.

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?

One sentence delivers the action, target, purpose, and HTTP endpoint with zero redundancy. Every element is functional and no unnecessary context inflates the description.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter tool, the description is adequately complete: it tells the agent what the tool does and what input it expects. It loses the final point because it does not describe the result shape or confirm whether the scan creates a background operation or returns a synchronous result.

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 schema already fully describes the single email parameter with 100% coverage, including 'account or ephemeral'. The description adds the one-address scope but provides no additional semantic details about expected input format or edge cases. 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Scan'), a precise resource ('one email address on the dark web for breaches'), and the endpoint: POST /api/security/dark-web-scan. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool 'scan_dark_web_all' by limiting scope to a single email address.

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 phrase 'one email address' clearly signals this tool is for targeted, single-address scans. Combined with the sibling name 'scan_dark_web_all', the intended usage context is understandable. However, the description does not explicitly tell users to prefer a different tool for scanning multiple or all addresses.

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