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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it spends 1 credit, refunds if no email is found, can return a transient 'searching' status requiring a no-charge retry, and never returns personal addresses. This gives the agent essential operational expectations for a live lookup.

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 concise but information-dense, front-loading the core purpose and then covering credit cost, retry semantics, result type, and limitations. Every sentence contributes operational value with no filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input expectations, return semantics, retry behavior, and edge cases. It could be slightly more explicit about output fields beyond emailStatus, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds practical meaning by clarifying the parameter is the person id from find_people or reveal_profile, and that the same id can be reused for the retry. This supplements the schema's simple description without being redundant.

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 clearly states the tool looks up a verified professional work email for an already-unlocked person, with a specific resource (person id) in scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like verify_email or company search because it targets a person's work email specifically.

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 gives clear context: use it for a person already unlocked via find_people or reveal_profile, and pass their id. It also explains the retry flow when emailStatus is 'searching'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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