Find ONE person's business email from their name and company domain. Generates ~50 permutations and SMTP-verifies each, waits for the result, and returns the best match (or not_found). Charges 10 Fox Credits per find.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Company domain, e.g. stripe.com | |
| last_name | Yes | Person's last name | |
| first_name | Yes | Person's first name | |
| middle_name | No | Optional middle name for more permutations |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully carries the burden: discloses generation of 50 permutations, SMTP verification, synchronous wait, return of best match or not_found, and cost. This exceeds minimal expectations.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, method/behavior, and cost. Front-loaded with verb and resource. No redundancy.
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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers input semantics, process (generating, verifying, returning), cost, and possible output 'not_found'. Complete for a single-email finder with good annotations.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by noting middle_name is 'Optional middle name for more permutations', which explains its behavioral effect beyond 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?
Description explicitly states it finds ONE person's business email from name and company domain, clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'find_emails' which suggests multiple results. The verb 'Find' and resource 'business email' are specific.
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?
Implies usage for single email lookup but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_email or find_emails. Mentions 10 Fox Credits cost, which is relevant for cost-aware selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a unique, clearly defined purpose: find_email for single lookup, find_emails for bulk, verify_email for single verification, verify_emails for bulk, plus separate tools for checking credits and polling async jobs. No overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., find_email, verify_emails, get_credits, get_job). The convention is uniform and predictable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped, covering both single and batch operations for finding and verifying emails, plus needed auxiliary functions (credits, job polling). This is optimal for the domain.
The tool set provides a complete workflow: finding emails (single/bulk), verifying emails (single/bulk), checking credits, and handling async jobs. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.
