check_exposure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and the description adds crucial non-obvious context: it returns aggregated metadata but 'never the exposed records themselves,' and it is 'a triage signal built from disclosure feeds, not proof of compromise.' This goes beyond the annotation flags with meaningful behavioral caveats.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and outputs, the second explains the caveat and required confirmation, and the third names sibling tools. It front-loads the core action and avoids 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return content (mention count, worst threat level, total accounts, data types, metadata) and what is deliberately excluded. It also covers interpretation and alternative tools, making the description complete for a 2-parameter triage tool.

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 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond restating 'domain, company or brand' and the all-history scope, so it fails to exceed the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Answer whether... appears') and clearly identifies the resource ('public breach or ransomware disclosures'). It enumerates the specific outputs (mention count, worst threat level, total accounts, data types) and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming breach_timeline and breach_news as alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For the incident-by-incident chronology of one entity, use breach_timeline; for a recent-news sweep, use breach_news.' It also provides the triage context and advises confirmation through authorized channels, guiding appropriate use.

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