Nameclick: Email Finder & Enrichment

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the credit economics in detail: a lookup is charged only on a hit, once per person, while self-published addresses, misses, email-less records and ambiguous identities are free. It also states what the underlying record holds (roles, location, links, company size/funding/site), which is unusual and decision-relevant context not present in the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information (input modes, resolution discipline, cost model, return contents, bulk caveat). Some clauses are dense and convoluted, particularly the run-on enumerating page-selection inputs, which costs a little 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with a nested `page` object, an output schema, and non-trivial cost behavior, the description covers what an agent needs: valid identity inputs, the resolve-before-calling discipline, billing consequences, and result contents. The only omission is sibling routing, which is peripheral to calling this tool 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema cannot express, notably that a bare name needs an employer/domain and that identity must be resolved from supplied evidence rather than guessed. The awkward phrase 'a name selected on a page with the text around it, a profile on X or a YouTube channel included' maps only loosely onto the `page` object.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Find who a person is and their email address') and then enumerates every accepted input shape (LinkedIn URL, email, GitHub login, name+company/domain, page selection), so the agent knows exactly what the tool resolves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `get_contact`, which plausibly overlaps.

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?

Explicit usage constraints are given: 'Resolve the person first: use the profile or employer the user gave you, never a guess' and 'Look up the person the user asked about, never people in bulk.' What is missing is any routing against the alternative `get_contact`, so the agent must guess when to prefer one over the other.

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

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, it discloses that the operation is free, is limited to the account's prior finds, and answers not_found outside that scope. These are useful cost, scope, and failure semantics for an otherwise simple lookup.

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 short sentences front-load purpose and accepted identifiers, then add cost and failure behavior with no filler. The wording is compact, and every sentence contributes operational information.

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?

Together with the annotations and output schema, the description supplies nearly everything needed to select and invoke the tool: scope, identifiers, cost, and the not_found case. The remaining ambiguity around empty or multi-identifier requests, plus the lack of an explicit new-search route to find_contact, keeps it from being fully complete.

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 schema already documents person and linkedin, while the description adds that person ID, email, and LinkedIn address are alternative lookup keys. It does not explicitly say that exactly one must be supplied or define precedence when several are provided, which matters because all three parameters are optional.

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 specifies an account-scoped retrieval of a previously found person and gives the three accepted lookup keys. Referencing the ID returned by find_contact and limiting the tool to prior finds meaningfully distinguishes it from that sibling.

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?

It clearly establishes the precondition for use—someone the account has already found—and states the not_found outcome otherwise. It does not explicitly direct new searches to find_contact, so the alternative workflow is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful auth context ('Needs no key') and clarifies that the OpenAPI document is returned, but it does not add much beyond that.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no wasted wording, and the key facts—API, OpenAPI document, plans, and no key required—are front-loaded. Slightly noun-heavy phrasing keeps it from being maximally clear.

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?

With an output schema present, no parameters, and strong read-only annotations, the description provides enough context to call the tool. It explains the returned resources and the no-key auth property; remaining details are covered structurally.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics and correctly focuses on what the tool returns.

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 names a specific resource set—the lookup API, its OpenAPI document, and the plans—and the title reinforces it as Nameclick's API/plans. It is distinguishable from the contact-oriented siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves'.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'for agents that call the API directly,' and adds the useful precondition 'Needs no key.' No exclusions or alternatives are needed because the sibling tools cover a different domain.

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