Check password breach

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the privacy-preserving k-anonymity flow: local SHA-1 hashing, sending only the first five hex characters, local matching, and returning { pwned, count }. It also warns users not to paste real passwords and never to repeat the password back.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and privacy mechanism, then includes the return shape and safety warning. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the return shape. It also covers the privacy model, safe usage warning, and non-disclosure instruction, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter already documents using a throwaway string. The description adds meaningful semantics about how the password is handled locally and minimized before transmission, which goes beyond the schema.

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 and resource: checking whether a password appears in known data breaches, with named sources and a privacy mechanism. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as hash_text or lookup_cve.

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 use context is clear: check a password against breach data, and use a throwaway or sample string rather than a real password. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools, so it falls short of explicit alternative routing.

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