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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful return-value context (emails with names, job position, type, company info) but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or the max-50 behavior beyond what the schema states. No contradiction exists.

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: it states the core action, return contents, relation to an external tool, and gives a code example in three sentences. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return fields and company info, and the schema covers parameters and authentication. It is mostly complete, though it would benefit from a brief note about when to choose this over snov_domain_email_count or snov_email_profile.

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 parameters like domain, limit, type, and _apiKey are already well documented. The description adds an example call with the expected _apiKey format and a domain, but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Find every email address on a company domain' and says it returns emails with name, position, and type. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like snov_domain_email_count or snov_email_profile, but the content makes the search purpose reasonably clear.

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 says it 'Complements Hunter domain search' but gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus the very similar sibling tools snov_domain_email_count or snov_email_profile. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction beyond the implied example.

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