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

The description discloses two important behavioral traits not captured by annotations: credit is charged only when an email is found, and an Idempotency-Key header is recommended for safe retries. This meaningfully adds context beyond the structured 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose comes first, followed by billing behavior and a retry-safety instruction. 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?

The description fully covers how to invoke the tool, the alternate input modes, the cost model, and retry guidance. With an output schema available, no critical information is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter relationship: LinkedIn can be used alone, while name requires domain. This combination logic is not fully explicit in the schema.

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 verb 'Find' and the resource 'a person's work email', and specifies the two lookup strategies: LinkedIn URL or full name plus company domain. This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like persons_find_phone and persons_lookup.

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 conditions for use: supply either a LinkedIn URL or a name plus domain. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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