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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, destructive=true, and idempotent=false, so the description's added value is the caching behavior ('Fresh results are cached per workspace; repeats are served from cache') and the credit-cost model. This is meaningful operational context and does not contradict the 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, accepted inputs, then operational behavior. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the returned profile fields (title, company, linkedin, location) and covers caching and credits. It does not describe miss behavior, default output shape, or the exact effect of `max_credits`, but the readable schema and enum largely compensate.

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 only 25%, but the description clarifies how to combine person fields, e.g. 'name plus company_domain', which adds value beyond the raw schema. However, it leaves `want` and `max_credits` semantically under-explained; their names and the `want` enum make them guessable, but the description does not explicitly connect them to the requested output or cost control.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find a person's verified work email and profile', and lists exactly which identifiers are accepted. It clearly operates at the person level, which distinguishes it from sibling enrich_company despite not naming it.

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 provides practical input prerequisites ('Accepts email, linkedin_url, or name plus company_domain') and useful cost/caching context. However, it does not name alternatives like verify_email or enrich_company, nor does it say when not to use this tool, leaving sibling-selection partly to inference.

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