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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the paid nature (per-row fee) and the verification behavior, which is useful. However, it doesn't state what happens on failure, whether the fee is charged on unsuccessful reveals, or any rate limits or auth requirements. The description adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and fee. The two usage modes are clearly separated. Minor redundancy with the schema's parameter descriptions, but overall efficient.

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 tool's complexity (paid action, two usage modes, output schema exists), the description covers the essential usage paths and the fee. It doesn't explain failure handling or edge cases, but the output schema likely covers return values. Slightly incomplete on failure semantics, but adequate for an agent to invoke 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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the relationship between reveal_handle and name+company (priority and fallback), which is valuable. However, it doesn't add format details or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: it reveals a paid work email for a selected decision-maker row, converting it into a verified email address with a per-row fee. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing find_decision_makers and get_balance, making its role in the workflow explicit.

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 provides two explicit usage modes: passing reveal_handle (preferred, from find_decision_makers results) or passing name + company for contactout verification. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates from alternatives.

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