hibp_check_password

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds only the breach-checking domain, not operational details such as whether the password is sent in plaintext, whether k-anonymity is used, or whether rate limits apply. With annotations covering the core behavior, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation and scope immediately.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with no output schema, so the description could reasonably explain what a result looks like (boolean, count, breach list) or mention privacy behavior. It does neither, leaving the return semantics and important security context implicit. The core action is clear, but the definition is not fully complete for an agent relying on it alone.

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 carry meaning for the single parameter. It does identify that the input is 'a password,' but it does not clarify whether the value should be plaintext, hashed, or otherwise formatted. For one obvious parameter this is minimally sufficient, but it leaves a meaningful ambiguity unresolved.

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, 'Check,' and a specific resource, 'password,' scoped to appearance in a data breach. It is distinguishable from siblings like hibp_check_account and hibp_all_breaches by focusing on a password rather than an account or breach list. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it falls short of the top score.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools such as hibp_check_account. A user must infer that this is for password-exposure checks rather than account-exposure checks or breach-list browsing.

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