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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says what information is returned, not whether the lookup is read-only, what happens for invalid or non-B2B emails, whether external lookups have side effects, or how failures are handled.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and lists useful output fields. There is no filler, repetition, or material that duplicates the title or schema.

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 output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the tool's core purpose is simple. However, with no annotations and an undocumented license_key parameter, the description is not fully complete for confident tool invocation.

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 only 50%: 'email' is documented but 'license_key' is not. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not explain whether license_key is required or how it affects the lookup, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('find'), names the resource ('email address'), and enumerates the returned attributes (name, title, company, LinkedIn). It clearly states what the tool does and needs no sibling differentiation since no siblings exist.

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?

There are no explicit when-to-use instructions or alternatives. The use case is implied by the description, and the schema adds a B2B-work-emails-only constraint, but the description itself gives no context about when this tool should be preferred or avoided.

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