search_email

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It mentions passive public-source nature and use of holehe, but does not disclose rate limits, reliability, or what happens on failure. Some behavioral context is given but insufficient.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, authorization, nature. No wasted words. Front-loaded with key info.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers purpose and authorization but omits output format (except json_output) and limitations. Acceptable but not thorough.

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 coverage is 50% (only json_output has description). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond what schema gives. 'email' is obvious, but no clarification on format or constraints.

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 uses holehe to enumerate accounts linked to an email. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., search_username, search_maigret) by targeting email specifically. Verb+resource is explicit.

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?

Explicitly states 'Authorized use only: your own assets or a target you are authorized to assess.' Also notes passive, public-source collection. Could mention alternatives like search_breach for data breaches, but the authorization guidance is strong.

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