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

The description discloses the credit cost and refund behavior, which is not captured in the annotations. It also clarifies the output includes confidence levels. It does not contradict the annotations, and while readOnlyHint is false, the description sufficiently explains the resource-affecting aspect via credit spend.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by usage routing and cost transparency. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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 fully covers input, output content, confidence levels, use cases, exclusions, alternatives, and credit implications. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema already documents the single parameter at 100% coverage, but the description adds practical meaning: domain is preferred, company name is also accepted, and it provides an example format. This goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 identifies the tool's function: given a company domain or name, return role-based email addresses with confidence levels. It explicitly distinguishes itself from named-person lookups by naming find_people and find_linkedin_profile, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is for.

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?

It states when to use the tool ('Use this for reaching a company inbox') and when not to ('not a specific named person'), and names the exact alternative tools. It also notes the preferred input format (domain preferred), giving clear operational guidance.

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