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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful output expectations (contact page, form, emails, social links) but does not disclose failure modes, pagination, or potential delays. This is adequate but not rich, and there is no contradiction with 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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words: the action is front-loaded, followed by specific output details and a brief context note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and only one parameter, the description provides sufficient context for standard use. It does not cover edge cases like invalid URLs or rate limits, but the simplicity and output schema reduce the need for additional detail.

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 must compensate. It implies the 'url' parameter is the company website address, but does not explicitly state its format or constraints. Given a single obvious parameter, the omission is minor but not fully compensated.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Find contact information for a company website') and enumerates specific outputs (contact page, form, emails, social links). It differentiates from sibling findLeads by focusing on contact details rather than broader lead discovery.

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 purpose implies when to use this tool (need contact details for a URL), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternative tools. The phrase 'Used by the lead pipeline' provides context but does not help an agent choose between this and siblings.

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