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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the per-website stablecoin pricing model, refunds for sites with no contacts found, and the supported payment networks (Base or Polygon, not Solana). It also specifies that the output is JSON including the contact page found, which is meaningful behavioral context.

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 three tightly structured sentences: purpose and return data first, pricing/refunds second, and payment-network restriction last. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the per-website cost, refund behavior, and payment-network constraints. It does not explain how payment is actually authorized or what error states look like, leaving a small but real gap for a paid tool.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage for the single `urls` parameter, including the 1-to-5 limit and domain-or-URL format. The description reinforces the batch size and per-site pricing but adds no new syntactic or semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: it sends websites and returns emails, phones, and social links from home, contact, and about pages. The purpose is clear and inherently distinct from siblings like email-verify or maps-contacts, but the description does not explicitly route the agent away from any sibling tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the clear 'website contact finder' framing and the 1-to-5 website limit, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as maps-contacts, email-verify, or web-search. Payment and network constraints add context, yet they do not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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