Find Name from Email

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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds value by disclosing the cost (0 credits) and category (clean), which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention error handling for invalid email formats or expected input constraints.

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 relatively short but contains some redundancy (first sentence repeats the title). The inclusion of 'Cost: 0 credit(s) per call. Category: clean' adds context but could be placed elsewhere. The structure is adequate but not optimally concise.

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, yet the description does not explain the return format (e.g., JSON object with keys firstname, lastname, domain). It mentions extracting these fields but lacks detail on the response structure. For a simple tool, this might suffice, but it is not fully complete.

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% for the single parameter 'queryValue', with its description 'Select email column' matching the description's args line. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as expected format or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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: extracting firstname, lastname, and domain from an email address. It uses specific verbs like 'find' and 'extract', and specifies the resource (email) and output fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like derrick_find_email or derrick_verify_email, which have different goals.

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 mentions 'useful for cleanup and parsing,' which gives a general context. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like derrick_enrich_profile or derrick_search_linkedin_profile. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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