search_hudsonrock

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: uses free masked tier, never returns passwords or login URLs, passive public-source collection. It also states output includes metadata (count, dates, OS, etc.). No contradictions with missing annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. It covers usage, behavior, and output in a single paragraph without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, behavior, and output format. It explains limitations (masked tier, no passwords) and metadata contents. The agent can decide and invoke correctly.

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% (only json_output described). The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'target' is an email or username and that the output reports exposure and metadata. It compensates for the undocumented parameter and provides useful context beyond 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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Check whether an email or username appears in Hudson Rock's free Cavalier infostealer index'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on malware-stolen credentials from a specific source, with explicit output details (exposure yes/no plus infection metadata).

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 provides clear usage context: 'AUTHORIZED-USE ONLY: for your own or an authorized identifier's exposure so credentials can be rotated.' It also notes keyless access and passive collection. It does not explicitly name alternatives but provides sufficient guidance on appropriate use.

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