default_creds_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently states it performs no network activity or scanning, indicating safe, read-only behavior. No side effects or rate limits are mentioned, but for this tool, that's acceptable.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, bullet-like input explanation, and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Despite no output schema, the description mentions the return type (LookupReport with matched_keys and credentials) and explains input formats comprehensively. For a simple lookup tool, it provides sufficient context.

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?

Only one parameter 'query' with 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by explaining it accepts short product names, full keys, or substrings, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 explicitly states the tool returns known default credentials, explains input formats (short product name, full key, substring), and output structure, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'sensitive_files_list' or 'wordlist_gen'.

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 description notes 'Pure data lookup — no network, no scanning,' indicating when to use it (passive lookup) and when not (for active scanning). It does not explicitly name alternatives but provides clear context.

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