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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavioral detail: which pages are crawled and that personal emails are deliberately excluded, only generic addresses returned. It says nothing about crawl limits, failure modes on sites without contact pages, or rate/blocking behavior, so the mutation-free read profile is only partially covered.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and then the use case. No filler or restated title.

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 shape needn't be explained, and the scope of extracted fields is well described. However, for a crawler-style tool, the unexplained `max_pages` parameter and unstated behavior on sparse sites leave an agent unable to reason about cost or coverage.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, but neither parameter is mentioned. `max_pages` (default 5) is especially opaque — nothing explains it bounds how many site pages are crawled, which materially affects result completeness.

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?

Names a specific verb (extract/find) and a precise resource set: generic company emails, phones, social pages, name and address, plus the exact page types crawled (home, contact, about, imprint). Easily distinguished from siblings like read_web_page, extract_links, and url_metadata, which return raw content rather than curated contact data.

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?

"Use to find how to reach a business" gives a positive use case, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over reading the page directly (read_web_page, url_metadata, extract_links) or what happens with non-business sites. Usage is implied rather than delineated.

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