find-email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Uses Hunter.io' but does not explain that the result may be unverified, that rate limits or API keys apply, or what happens if no email is found. For a read-only lookup that may return probabilistic data, this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. 'Uses Hunter.io' is a concise implementation note that provides context without bloat. No words are wasted, and the information is immediately understandable.

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?

This tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a simple input schema. The description fails to specify return format, failure behavior, or how it differs from related tools like enrich-person or domain-search. Given the lack of structured info elsewhere, the description is incomplete for confident invocation and result interpretation.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (firstName, lastName, domain). The description's phrase 'given their name and company domain' paraphrases the schema but adds no new format, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('email address'), with clear inputs ('name and company domain'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like domain-search (which finds all emails in a domain) and verify-email (which checks an existing email). The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when you have a person's name and company domain. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose itself differentiates it from siblings. This is more than implied usage—it states the exact precondition.

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