search_paste

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions passive, public-source collection and HIBP paste index, but does not discuss any side effects, rate limits, or output behavior beyond mentioning json_output. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 three sentences, each providing critical information: purpose, authorization, and passive nature. No wasted words; the information is front-loaded and concise.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete enough. It covers the query source, authorization, and passive nature. It might benefit from mentioning default output format, but for a simple tool this is sufficient.

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 covers 50% of parameters (json_output described). The description adds value by specifying that query is an email or username, which is not stated in the schema. For json_output, the schema already provides a description. Overall, the description compensates for the schema's lack of query semantics.

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 purpose: searching public paste sites for an email or username using HIBP and search-engine dorking. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_breach (focused on breach data) and search_dork (which may search different sources).

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 explicitly states authorized use only and passive public-source collection, giving clear guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the context implies when not to use (e.g., unauthorized or active collection).

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