GHunt Google account lookup

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's burden is lower. It adds meaningful behavioral context by requiring a one-time `ghunt login`, which an agent must know before invocation, and it briefly lists what data will be returned. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but those are secondary given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with zero filler: the action and accepted identifier forms are front-loaded, the returned data fields are listed compactly, and the login prerequisite is stated separately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the input forms, the likely result contents, and the critical login prerequisite. It could be more explicit about error cases or unrecognized accounts, but nothing essential to selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 single `identifier` parameter is fully described in the schema ('Google account email address, or numeric Gaia ID'), so the description adds no genuinely new syntax or formatting detail. Reinforcing the two accepted input forms is useful but does not exceed the baseline for 100% schema description coverage.

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 specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('Google account'), then names the two accepted identifier forms (email address or Gaia ID) and enumerates concrete data fields (name, profile picture, Gaia ID, Maps reviews, calendar). This makes the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from the sibling username/email OSINT 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 gives clear context: this tool is for Google-account enumeration keyed by email or Gaia ID, and it flags the `ghunt login` prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the platform-specific scope is enough to steer an agent toward this tool over the siblings.

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