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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds key behavioral context: crawling up to a few pages per site and that each successful crawl counts as one result. It omits rate limits, auth needs, and failure handling, but meaningfully enriches the safety-only annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by result semantics. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 moderate complexity, a fully documented schema, and annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description is largely complete. It explains crawl scope and result counting, though it could note error handling or non-company domain behavior; no output schema means return format need not be covered.

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 urls and maxPagesPerDomain are fully documented with bounds and defaults. The description's "up to a few pages" is vague and adds no precise parameter detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ("Find") and resource (public emails, phone numbers, social profiles) and scopes it to company websites via crawling. This distinguishes it from siblings like website_screenshot or tech_stack, which serve different purposes.

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 implies its use case (contact discovery on company sites) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Result-counting semantics are given, but no routing guidance is provided.

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