recruiter_find_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: two execution paths (Dropcontact API vs. pattern guess), dependence on an environment variable, and the meaning of the 'status' field (verified vs. guessed_unverified). This is comprehensive for a tool of this complexity.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, detailing two modes, and clarifying the 'verified' status. No wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (two modes, env var dependency, status logic) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers essential behavioral context. It could mention edge cases (e.g., missing domain when no Dropcontact), but it provides enough for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema descriptions already detail each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'Full name', 'optional, improves Dropcontact results'). The tool description adds context by linking parameters to the two operational modes, but the schema itself already provides sufficient semantic clarity. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find or guess a recruiter's email.' It uses a specific verb (find/guess) and resource (email), and distinguishes from siblings like recruiter_identify or recruiter_qualify by focusing on contact retrieval.

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 explains two operational modes based on the DROPCONTACT_KEY env var and conditions for each method (pattern guess vs. Dropcontact API). It clarifies when 'verified' status is set, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like recruiter_draft_message, though the purpose is distinct.

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