stealer_email

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the return value (compromised machines with that email in browser credentials) and an authentication requirement (HUDSONROCK_API_KEY). This goes beyond a bare 'search' statement and provides meaningful behavioral context, though it omits failure modes or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences cover purpose, output, and requirement with no redundancy or filler. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and result type. It lacks explicit pagination or limit details, but that is not critical for the tool's purpose. The description is sufficiently complete to guide usage.

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 100% with a self-explanatory 'email' parameter description. The tool description reaffirms the search field but does not add new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Hudson Rock Cavalier stealer logs') with a clear filter (by email). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like stealer_domain and stealer_ip by specifying the email-based query and the output (compromised machines with browser 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?

The description states the input type (email address) and output (compromised machines), implying when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance. The API key requirement is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. Sibling tool names suggest obvious distinctions, giving clear context.

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