search_harvester

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

The description emphasizes 'passive only, no active probing' and 'passive, public-source collection,' clearly disclosing non-invasive behavior. However, without annotations, it omits details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or data handling practices.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key constraints (passive, authorized use). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 only two parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose and passivity but lacks information on return values, pagination, or error handling. Adequate for a simple passive search tool but not fully complete.

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% with only the 'json_output' parameter having a description; the 'domain' parameter has no schema description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what is already in the schema, failing to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 performs passive organization/domain recon using theHarvester to gather emails, people, and subdomains from public sources. The verb 'recon' and specific resource types distinguish it from siblings like search_domain or search_email.

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 mentions authorized use only, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for passive domain recon but lacks exclusion criteria.

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