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

The description discloses that the tool uses Potarix Enricher API credits, a cost-related behavior not captured by the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive). It adds this useful context without contradicting any annotations, though it does not mention what happens when no email is found.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the exact purpose, and the second provides a critical cost warning. It is front-loaded and highly scannable.

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 simple read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and schema descriptions, the description adequately conveys core functionality and cost. However, it does not specify return values or edge cases (e.g., no email found), and the absence of an output schema makes this gap more noticeable.

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?

The schema describes all 5 parameters with full coverage (100%), so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The mention of 'named person at a company or domain' generally aligns with the parameters but does not enrich them beyond the schema descriptions.

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 tool finds a verified email for a named person at a company or domain, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_company_emails and find_decision_maker_email, which target company-wide or role-specific emails respectively.

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 implies you should use this tool when you have a person's full name and a domain or company, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool is named for comparison, so usage guidance remains implied.

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