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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it charges 2 credits only on success, can take several minutes, and recommends an Idempotency-Key header for safe retries. This is strong practical guidance, though it stops short of describing failure modes or the exact async response flow.

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 purpose, followed by three high-value operational notes. The only minor redundancy is that the first sentence mirrors the title exactly, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema, the description covers the important non-schema details: cost, slowness, and retry safety. It does not mention polling or callback behavior for the multi-minute wait, but the provided output schema and simple parameter surface make this reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter organizationId is already fully documented as a company ID from search or enrichment. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already carries the burden.

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 operation: find an organization's decision maker with a verified email. It is specific enough to separate the tool from sibling search/enrichment tools, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives or define what counts as a decision maker.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like organizations_enrich, persons_find_email, or organizations_search. The operational caveats about credits and latency are helpful, but no when/when-not conditions or alternative tool references are provided.

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