find_contacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it scrapes team/about pages and that email addresses are 'probable' and generated using 'common patterns', honestly conveying the heuristic nature of the output. It does not cover rate limits or blocking, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 efficient sentences: a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a detail sentence about method and output. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundant filler or background.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the essential return content (names, titles, LinkedIn URLs, probable email addresses) and the method. It lacks explicit notes on edge cases like pagination or data freshness, but the high-level behavior is sufficiently specified for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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% because the query parameter description already explains the domain/URL format. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific semantics, so it does not elevate above the baseline of 3.

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 'key people at a company', then elaborates with method ('Scrapes team/about pages') and concrete outputs (names, titles, LinkedIn URLs, probable emails). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lookup_tech_stack, which focuses on technology rather than people.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need key people or contact details for a company. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings research_company or lookup_tech_stack, nor state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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