hibp_check_password

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 fails to mention how the check works (e.g., hashing, API interaction), privacy implications (password sent to service), or the return format (boolean vs list of breaches). This is insufficient for a security tool.

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 sentence, which makes it concise, but it lacks front-loading of critical information. It could be restructured to include result details or usage hints without becoming overly long.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description should still clearly explain what the tool returns (e.g., breach count or details) and how to interpret results. It currently leaves too much ambiguity for an AI agent to use it confidently.

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?

The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema for the 'password' parameter. It doesn't clarify required format (plaintext, hash, etc.) or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage and no additional details, this is a significant gap.

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 it checks a password against data breaches, with a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'password', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'hibp_check_account' and 'hibp_all_breaches'.

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?

While the description implies when to use it (to check a password), it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives, such as checking an email account instead. It is adequate but lacks explicit context.

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