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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing credit costs, the refund policy for email lookups, idempotent re-reveal behavior, live email latency, and the emailStatus 'searching' retry protocol. This is rich, actionable behavioral context with no contradiction to 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary operational detail. There is no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the returned profile fields, covers the optional email path, credit impact, idempotency, and retry behavior. Given the two-parameter schema and the people_search provenance, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 essential semantics: where the token comes from, that include_email is processed in the same call, the extra refundable credit, and how to handle the 'searching' email status. These details are not inferable from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb ('Unlock') and resource ('ONE person') while explicitly tying the input to a people_search result pool. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like people_search, find_people, or fetch_email.

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?

Clear context is given: use it after a people_search returns a token, and set include_email when a verified email is also wanted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the prerequisite is unambiguous enough for an agent.

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