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

Discloses rich behavioral detail well beyond annotations: credit consumption triggers (only when email/phone is returned), free re-views of already-revealed contacts, zero-cost refusals (opted out, restricted, unavailable, nothing on file), permission and terms prerequisites, and per-plan daily caps. This is exactly the mutation/consumption context the readOnlyHint=false annotation leaves open.

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 the plan requirement and core action, and every clause carries distinct information (credits, free re-views, refusals, permission, terms, caps, usage restriction). The single dense paragraph would scan better as structured bullets, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned data (business email and phone) plus provenance fields (source, as_of). Combined with credits, permissions, and usage limits, an agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100% and the description essentially restates the schema's meaning for person_id (id or slug from search_speakers / get_speaker). It adds the scope note that the target is 'one public speaker', but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: reveals the business email and phone of one public speaker. The 'person_id or slug from search_speakers / get_speaker' clause and the credit semantics distinguish it from the free sibling lookup tools, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context: requires Pro plan, needs 'atlas.reveal' permission plus one-time data-terms acceptance, and restricts use to business-to-business outreach. It implies the discovery path (search_speakers / get_speaker) for obtaining person_id, but never explicitly says when to prefer a free sibling instead of spending a credit, so no true when-not guidance.

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