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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false — enough to signal external lookup but nothing about cost or timing. The description supplies both: a conditional 2-credit charge that fires only on success, and a multi-minute latency window. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs before committing to a call, and nothing contradicts the annotations (a credit-consuming finder is consistent with readOnlyHint=false).

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 doing distinct work: what it returns, what it costs, how long it takes. The payoff statement is front-loaded and there is 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?

With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and one fully documented parameter needs little prose. The description covers the two non-obvious facts an agent must weigh — cost and latency — but says nothing about the no-result case (e.g., whether credits are untouched and what the response looks like when no decision maker exists).

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Company ID returned by organization search or enrichment'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail for organizationId, which is the correct baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource plus a meaningful qualifier: finding the decision maker of an organization, with the email verified. That is far more specific than a generic 'look up organization', though it never names how it differs from near neighbors like organizations_enrich or persons_find_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?

The scenario where this applies (you have an organizationId and want a decision-maker contact) is implied rather than stated, and no alternative tool is named as the wrong or right choice. The cost and latency hints ('charges 2 credits', 'a few minutes') do help an agent decide whether to invoke it, which lifts this above pure silence.

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