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

Goes well beyond the annotations: cached-vs-provider path, credit consumption, persistence into the shared sponsor directory, the meaning of a pending status, and the fact that retrying does not re-hit the provider. This is exactly the contextual meat the four annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true) cannot convey on their own.

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 what the tool does, then layered with cost/behavior/entitlement in four dense but purposeful sentences. Nothing is padding, though the pending-status sentence is somewhat heavy for an agent that mainly needs the action and cost model.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still covers the non-obvious failure mode (pending / reconciliation), idempotent retries, credit implications, and access gating. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% and the sole person_id parameter is already documented as coming from sponsor_search_contacts. The description reinforces that the ID is sent to the data provider and concerns a single contact, but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Reveal) and a precisely-scoped resource (the verified work email of ONE Find sponsors contact). This cleanly separates it from sponsor_get_contact (general lookup) and sponsor_search_contacts (which returns the person_id this tool consumes, as the schema itself notes).

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 supplies real usage context — cached emails cost nothing while a fresh reveal burns provider credits, and it requires a Creator Max or agency Pro/Scale/Enterprise plan — which helps an agent weigh whether to call it. However it never explicitly names an alternative or states when NOT to use it versus siblings like sponsor_get_contact, leaving routing to inference.

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