Sherlock username search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds the scope (400+ sites) and output format (profile URLs), but doesn't disclose potential rate-limiting, network variability, or that results depend on site availability. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is fair.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core function is front-loaded, and the output is described immediately. Every word 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 read-only, idempotent tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the scope. It doesn't mention edge cases like network failures or site availability, but those are minor given the annotations and schema.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the context that the tool checks 400+ sites and returns profile URLs, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for each parameter. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Find accounts'), a clear resource (username across 400+ social networks), and the output (sites where the username exists with profile URLs). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like holehe_email_search (email-based) and theharvester_domain_search (domain-based).

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have a username and want to find associated accounts across many platforms. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list and the description's focus on username-based search make the use case clear. A 4 is appropriate because it provides clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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