check_password_breach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers meaningfully: it discloses the k-anonymity mechanism, exactly what data leaves the system (first 5 SHA-1 characters), and that the password and full hash are never sent, stored, or logged. It does not cover rate limits, offline/failure behavior, or result semantics beyond the count, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Two short blocks: the purpose sentence first, then the privacy note. Every sentence earns its place, and the privacy disclosure is exactly the kind of information an agent needs before passing a secret into a tool.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and the critical privacy behavior. The main remaining gap is a lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer it over the sibling password tools, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does convey that the parameter is a plaintext password and that hashing is handled internally, but it does not state format constraints such as length, encoding, or whether an already-hashed value is accepted. Baseline-adjacent with a useful hint but incomplete.

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 and resource: count how many times a password appeared in known data breaches. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like password_strength and generate_password, and an agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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 implies usage (check whether a password has been exposed) but never explicitly says when to use this versus password_strength or generate_password, nor does it state any preconditions such as requiring a plaintext password. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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