domain-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden. It mentions the action and filters but does not disclose important behaviors such as the limit parameter defaulting to 10, whether 'all' is actually capped, output format, or whether emails are verified.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and no filler. The second sentence efficiently lists the filter options.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain the return value structure, default limit behavior, or the nuance behind 'all' (which is constrained by the limit parameter). This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding to invoke the 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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description only names the filter categories (department, seniority, email type) without adding any semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it finds all email addresses for a company domain, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like verify-email or enrich-person by focusing on domain-based discovery.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need emails for a given domain. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving ambiguity with sibling tools like find-email.

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