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

The annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and readOnlyHint. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail not in annotations: it consumes one lookup credit only when an e-mail address is found. It does not cover all operational details such as rate limits or account requirements, but it goes beyond annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and inputs, followed by the credit rule. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 existing output schema and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns conceptually (contact details and job), how to invoke it, and its credit behavior. No critical context appears missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including name+company pairing and include_phone's extra-credit behavior. The description reinforces the main input modes but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Find a person's work e-mail address, other contact details and current job') and identifies the input modalities. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as find_company_details by being person-focused and from CRM record lookups by using public-profile/email/name-company lookup.

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 gives clear invocation context by naming the three lookup routes: public profile link, e-mail address, or name plus company. It does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives like find_person_in_crm or search_prospects, so it lacks full alternative/exclusion guidance.

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