Email Finder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'finds the most likely email address', without explaining how it works, what it returns, potential failure modes, or whether any external lookups or side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation context.

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 a single sentence that is clear and free of redundant information. It front-loads the core action and resource without unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., an email address string, multiple options, confidence score). It does not, nor does it address edge cases such as 'no email found'. Given the simple tool and lack of annotations, this is a notable incompleteness.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters (domain, first_name, last_name) with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal value by linking them to 'a person at a company domain', but this is already evident from the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters well.

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's purpose: finding the most likely email address for a person at a company domain. The verb 'find' combined with the resource 'email address' is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'verify_email', which focuses on verification rather than 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?

The description implies that the tool should be used when you need to discover an email address for a known person and company domain. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus the sibling tool 'verify_email', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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