search_gravatar

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool is passive and public-source, implying no destructive side effects. It lists the type of data returned, which provides transparency beyond the name alone.

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: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guideline, third notes passive nature. No filler or 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?

For a simple lookup tool with two parameters, the description covers purpose, authorized use, data returned, and operational nature. Lacks mention of behavior when email has no Gravatar, but overall adequate.

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 has 50% coverage (only json_output has a description). The description does not elaborate on the email parameter beyond the verb 'look up', but the parameter name is self-explanatory. The json_output parameter is already described in the schema.

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 verb 'Look up', the resource 'email's public Gravatar profile', and lists specific data fields (avatar, display name, bio, location, linked/verified accounts). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying Gravatar as the service and notes it as passive, public-source collection.

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?

Includes explicit authorization requirement ('Authorized use only: your own assets or a target you are authorized to assess') and notes the passive nature. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or compare with alternatives like search_email.

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