search_footprint

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: passive public-source collection, billing per query, automatic source switching (DuckDuckGo vs. Bright Data), and authorization. No destructive or unintended behaviors are omitted, though it could mention rate limits or result limits.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core action, output format, source mechanics, and usage policy. No redundant words; information is front-loaded. It efficiently packs multiple aspects without being verbose.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-entity search, graph output), the description covers purpose, output (structured results and graph nodes/edges), source, billing, and authorization. Without an output schema, it explains return values adequately. Missing details like result count limits or pagination prevent a perfect score.

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 67%, with json_output and max_queries already described. The description adds critical context for the target parameter by listing valid entity types (email, username, domain, phone, full name), which the schema lacks. This goes beyond the baseline of 3 for high coverage, though some meaning is still inferred.

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 finds 'real public profiles' across multiple entity types (email, username, domain, phone, full name), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_email or search_username that focus on a single type. The verb 'search' combined with specific resource and entity-awareness provides high clarity.

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 includes authorization requirements ('Authorized use only') and notes the default source (DuckDuckGo) and optional Bright Data usage. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, which slightly reduces guidance strength.

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