list_leaked_credential_detections

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 only says the tool lists detections; it does not mention return format, pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or whether any filtering is applied. For a list operation this is a meaningful gap.

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 filler or redundancy. It is appropriately brief for a tool with one parameter, though it could have used the available space to mention pagination or response content.

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's simplicity, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool. However, without annotations or mention of return values or pagination, it is not fully complete for a list operation.

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% because zone_id is documented as 'The zone ID'. The description adds little beyond restating the zone scope, so it stays at the baseline 3 rather than adding new semantic value.

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 'List leaked credential detections for a zone' clearly identifies the verb (list), the resource (leaked credential detections), and the scope (zone). It is specific enough to distinguish from the many sibling 'get_*' tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like list_security_insights or get_leaked_credential_check_settings.

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 only states the zone scope and gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention filters, pagination, or exclusions, and it does not direct the agent to related tools such as get_leaked_credential_check_settings for configuration details.

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