breach_history

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

Annotations already signal read-only/idempotent/open-world, so the description only needs to add context beyond those hints. It does so by explaining the return boundary: 'Returns disclosure metadata only, never breach contents' and enumerating the source archives covered, giving strong transparency for a read tool.

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 structured sentences front-load the verb/resource, then detail sources, filters, and examples without fluff. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but each clause carries information; not quite the two-sentence minimalism of a perfect score.

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 having no output schema, the description explicitly states the return type ('disclosure metadata only') and the full scope of sources, filters, and ordering options, matching the tool's 8-parameter complexity. The examples further anchor when to use it, making the description effectively complete for agent selection.

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?

All 8 parameters have complete schema descriptions, so the tool's parameters carry the semantic weight. The description paraphrases the filter options ('keyword, year range, sector, exposed data type or minimum scale') but adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with 'Search the FULL historical breach archive'—a specific verb+resource with clear scope (every incident back to 2007, multiple named sources). The examples ('what were the biggest breaches of 2013') further clarify intent and distinguish from sibling news/stats tools, though not by explicit alternative naming.

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?

'Use this for questions like...' provides concrete application scenarios. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use (e.g., for current news use breach_news) or name alternatives, so it falls short of full 5.

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