default_creds_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Pure data lookup — no network, no scanning,' which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention potential side effects or authentication needs, but for a simple lookup this is sufficient.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then provides input examples and a disclaimer. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. It is well-structured with an 'Args' section, balancing informativeness and brevity.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers everything needed: purpose, input format, case-insensitivity, and return structure (LookupReport with matched_keys and credentials). It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 only parameter 'query' is described in detail: it accepts vendor/product/service identifier, is case-insensitive, and examples are given. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by adding essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 returns known default credentials for a vendor/product/service, with specific input examples (short name, full key, substring). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it's a pure data lookup without network or scanning, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (lookup default credentials) and implicitly advises it's safe (pure lookup, no scanning). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, missing full guidance.

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