search_emailrep

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses passive nature, API key requirement, and typical data points. However, lacks details on error handling (e.g., missing key), rate limits, or idempotency. Provides adequate but not exhaustive insight.

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: first defines purpose and output, second states requirements and constraints. No redundancy, highly efficient. Information is front-loaded and 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, key data points, usage constraints, and ethical boundary. Could mention default output format (text vs JSON) but overall sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 50% (json_output described, email not). The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the tool's purpose. Email parameter lacks format/validation guidance; description does not compensate for this gap.

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 the tool retrieves email reputation and footprint via EmailRep.io, specifying profiles seen and breach/abuse flags. It distinguishes from 31 siblings by focusing on EmailRep.io for email-specific reputation.

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 mentions required API key and authorization constraints (own assets or authorized target). States it is passive public-source collection, providing clear contexts for use. Does not contrast with alternatives but covers prerequisites and ethical use.

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