search_maigret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Passive, public-source collection,' indicating read-only behavior, but lacks details on rate limits, data handling, or return format. Minimal but adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes ethical usage. Every sentence adds value with no 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 the complexity of discovering across 3000+ sites, the description lacks details on output structure, pagination, or limitations. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has a description). The description does not add meaning for 'username' format or clarify 'json_output' behavior. It does not compensate for the missing schema details.

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's function: 'Broad username/identity discovery across 3,000+ sites via maigret (also extracts profile details).' It uses a specific verb ('discovery') and resource ('username/identity'), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing scale and passive nature.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Authorized use only: your own assets or a target you are authorized to assess. Passive, public-source collection.' It implies when not to use (unauthorized scenarios) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'search_username'.

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