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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the call blocks up to wait_seconds, can be resumed via job_id at no extra charge, consumes a billable search from the plan or wallet, and guarantees results come from real records with per-email verification status.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the delivery guarantee, then the async/cost mechanics. Three dense sentences with little waste, though the parenthetical enumeration of contact channels and the two cost clauses make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 no output schema present, the description does explain the return payload (leads plus each email's verification status) and the resume protocol, which covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. Pagination or limit interaction with the returned set is not addressed, leaving a small gap for a 5-property, nested-object search tool.

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 every parameter (limit, query, job_id, filters and its nested keys, wait_seconds) is already documented inline; this sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces wait_seconds and the free-resume semantics of job_id but adds no format, syntax or boundary detail the schema lacks.

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 (find), resource (people or businesses matching a plain-language description), and a distinguishing scope constraint: only leads with a real, record-backed contact method, never generated. This sets it apart from the sibling search_leads without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Explains the async flow (waits up to wait_seconds; if still running, call again with the returned job_id) and states the cost condition (consumes one search from the plan allowance or wallet). It does not explicitly name when to prefer search_leads or discover_companies over this tool, so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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