breach_news

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds crucial safety context: 'Every row is metadata only — never the leaked data' and a redaction pass strips credential-shaped content. It also discloses output ordering ('newest first'), exceeding the minimal annotation bar without contradiction.

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 dense sentences front-load the core verb and resource, then deliver critical safety and usage distinctions. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description explains the output fields (entity, date, scale, exposed data types, threat level, source), ordering, filtering, and safety redaction. It also covers alternatives for different use cases, making it fully self-contained for an agent.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight reinforcement ('Use sector to narrow to an industry keyword') but does not provide significant new meaning beyond the schema's already explicit filter semantics.

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 names a specific action ('Read recent breach and ransomware DISCLOSURES') and resource (public threat-intel feeds) with concrete sources and ordering ('newest first'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to check_exposure for one organization and breach_history for all-time history.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use sector to narrow to an industry keyword' and names alternatives for specific use cases ('for one specific organization use check_exposure; for all-time history use breach_history'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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