breachGet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the endpoint is free and requires no API key, which are behavioral traits. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or confirm that the operation is read-only (though 'Get' implies it). This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, source, and access requirements without any wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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?

For a simple one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the data source, and that it is free/no-key. It does not describe the returned details, but 'details' is sufficient for basic invocation. Minor gap, but generally 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'name' parameter, including format guidance (Pascal-cased) and examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get details of a specific data breach by name from HaveIBeenPwned.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), resource ('data breach'), and scope ('by name'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like breachList and breachSearch that handle lists or searches.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you have a specific breach name) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. It provides clear context for its intended use case, but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling references.

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