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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds substantial context beyond annotations: result cap of 50, emails HIDDEN, cost of 0 credits, and the downstream charging model for find_email. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to plan calls.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral facts, then usage constraints, then examples - every clause earns its place and there is no filler. Slightly packed with parenthetical detail, but efficient overall.

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?

No output schema, and the description does describe the return nature (profile-first, up to 50, emails hidden), which is what an agent needs. Only the undefined parameters leave a modest gap, and with a single required parameter the tool is still safe to invoke.

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 only 40% (limit, location, company_size, technologies, hiring_growth, revenue_growth are undocumented). The description offers only loose examples ('CTOs at funded SaaS companies') rather than mapping meaning to the six undocumented parameters, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find people with a specific title/role at companies matching given criteria') plus concrete examples. The scope (profile-first, emails hidden) is clear, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling search_contacts, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Gives explicit negative guidance ('do NOT call it repeatedly per company; one call covers the criteria') and routes the agent to the correct alternate step ('Reveal an individual email with find_email'). The when-not and the follow-up alternative are both named.

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