search_username

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly discloses depth modes (light/dev/complete with specific site counts and a 10-minute deadline for complete), inclusion of adult sites, upstream false-positive exclusions, explicit site override behavior, a prerequisite (sherlock package extra), and a critical caveat that a match does not establish identity. This is far beyond minimal disclosure and gives the agent a clear expectation of side effects and limitations.

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 concise yet dense, with every sentence contributing value. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently lists depth modes, caveats, and requirements. No filler or redundancy; each clause earns its place. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential operational details: depth modes, time limits, site selection behavior, prerequisites, and a key limitation. It does not describe the exact return format, but 'candidate accounts' implies the output is a list of accounts, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The description is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 fully explains the 'depth' parameter (enum meanings), and indirectly explains 'sites' via 'Explicit sites override the preset's selection'. The 'username' parameter is self-explanatory from the tool's purpose. While the description does not formally name each parameter, it adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare types and enums.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Find candidate accounts') on a specific resource (username) using a specific method ('local Sherlock'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_web (general web search) and search_shodan (host lookup). The purpose is unambiguous and cannot be confused with other tools.

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 that the tool is for username-based account discovery, and details depth options and site overrides. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_web or search_archives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough to imply usage, but explicit exclusions or alternative routing are absent.

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