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

With minimal annotations (only readOnly/destructive hints), the description fully discloses the credit cost (4 credits only on successful find), the waterfall of Hunter->PDL->RocketReach, and free conditions (miss, already revealed, or in CRM). This goes beyond annotations and gives critical operational behavior.

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 efficiently structured with the purpose first, followed by cost/pricing, parameters, and batching guidance. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, and the em-dash list format improves readability.

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?

The description covers purpose, cost, free conditions, and usage pattern. Though there is no output schema, the description implies the tool returns the revealed email but does not explicitly state the return format or what happens on a miss (e.g., null response). This is a minor gap but acceptable given the clear primary function.

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 67%, and the description adds guidance on which parameters to prioritize: 'Pass the profile's full_name + company (and linkedin_url if shown)'. This clarifies the intent of parameters and improves on the schema descriptions.

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 reveals a verified work email for one profile, using the verb 'reveal' and the resource 'verified work email'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like search_contacts (which finds profiles) and validate_email (which validates), and mentions the profile-first hiding behavior.

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 specifies usage after a search_contacts result and gives concrete guidance for revealing multiple emails (call once per contact, confirm with user about credit costs). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like enrich_contact or validate_email, but the context is strong.

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