hunter_find_emails_by_domain

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost (1 Hunter request), that it doesn't consume per-email credits, and describes return fields. However, it lacks details on rate limits or caching, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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?

Five well-structured sentences with no waste. The opening sentence states the core action and resource. Each subsequent sentence adds distinct value: use cases, cost, return fields, and a precursor action.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and 0 annotations, the description sufficiently covers return values, cost, and best practices. It suggests using hunter_count_emails first, providing actionable context for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by noting that department accepts comma-separated values and lists options. It also contextualizes email_type by explaining the returned address styles, exceeding schema detail.

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 explicitly states the verb and resource: 'Find all email addresses associated with a company domain.' It lists return fields (confidence scores, names, job titles, LinkedIn URLs) and distinguishes from siblings like hunter_find_email (individual) and hunter_count_emails (gauge availability).

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 opens with 'Best for: prospecting a whole company, building outreach lists, discovering team structure at a target account.' It also advises using hunter_count_emails first. While it doesn't state when not to use, it implies alternatives exist.

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