scan_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the scan runs in the background, takes several minutes, returns immediately with a scan_id, allows only one scan at a time, and that leaked credentials are not in the headline result. This is rich, non-obvious behavior beyond what structured fields could convey.

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 tightly written sentences that deliver all essential information without padding. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with actionable workflow steps, constraints, and input requirements. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: the asynchronous nature, the return value (scan_id), the polling workflow, the concurrency limit, input prerequisites, and where to find sensitive data. This is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema has 6 optional parameters with no descriptions, and the description compensates for most: it names email, phone, name, city, and state in context, and specifies that at least one of email/phone/name is required, with name working best alongside city/state. However, zip_code is not mentioned at all, leaving a small gap in parameter 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 opens with 'Start a privacy-OSINT scan,' clearly specifying both the action and the resource. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by mentioning the immediate return of a scan_id and directing users to subsequent tools (scan_status, get_report, reveal_credentials).

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use this tool ('Provide at least one of email / phone / name') and what to do next: 'Poll scan_status(scan_id) until it reports "done", then call get_report(scan_id).' It also states the concurrency limitation and points to reveal_credentials for leaked credentials, providing clear alternatives.

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