search_emailrep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is passive and public-source, implying no destructive effects, but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or network dependencies. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: tool function, prerequisites, and ethical use. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information.

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 moderate schema coverage, the description covers the key aspects: tool function, data source, authorization, and passivity. It could be improved by mentioning output format or potential errors, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI 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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (json_output has a description). The description adds context by explaining the overall purpose and what the email parameter is used for (reputation checks). It does not further elaborate on json_output beyond the schema, so the added value is moderate.

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 that the tool provides an email reputation and footprint summary via EmailRep.io, including profiles seen and breach/abuse flags. This is specific to a single service and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_breach or search_email which may have different scopes.

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 explicitly requires the EMAILREP_API_KEY and restricts use to authorized assets, providing clear ethical guidelines. It also notes the passive, public-source nature. However, it does not differentiate from other email-related tools or specify when not to use it.

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