Holehe email registration check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those safety traits. The description adds useful scope context ('about 120 websites'), but does not mention network behavior, rate limits, or possible caveats about coverage; with strong annotations this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 read-only lookup with one required parameter and rich annotations, this is mostly complete. However, there is no output schema and the description does not indicate what the result report looks like or how the timeout/only_used options affect output, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear resource: the set of about 120 websites where an email address may be registered. It clearly identifies this as an email-based registration lookup, which distinguishes it from the sibling username-search tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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 intended use is implied by the wording 'Check which of about 120 websites have an account registered to an email address,' so an agent can infer when to call it. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for similar lookups.

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