username_osint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses passivity, public scope, audit-log recording, long runtimes ('can take a few minutes'), and the structured return shape. This gives the agent realistic expectations beyond a simple 'lookup'.

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 well-organized using clear subheadings and front-loads the core purpose. There is some repetition between the USECASE, description, and Args sections, but it remains concise enough for an agent to parse quickly and each section adds distinct value.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity, and the description covers prerequisites, authorization guidance, related tools, an example, and the return structure (including the 'found' list of {site, url}). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to fully document return values, but the description still provides sufficient context.

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 fully compensates. The INPUT_DESCRIPTION names both parameters, and the Args section elaborates that username is the handle to search and timeout is an optional seconds override, even noting why it might be needed (Sherlock checks many sites).

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Enumerate which public platforms a username exists on (Sherlock).' The USECASE further clarifies it discovers registered platforms from public profile pages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like email_harvest or subdomain_enum.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, including prerequisites ('run on handles you are authorized to profile') and that it is passive and not network-scope-gated. However, it does not explicitly contrast alternatives beyond listing RELATED_TOOLS, so it stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use.

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