Email to B2B Profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never says whether the call consumes credits (note the sibling get_credits), requires authentication, what happens when no profile is found, or whether results are cached — all material for a lookup tool.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the actionable verb and resource. The second sentence largely restates the first ('reverse lookup' vs 'find ... using'), so it is slightly redundant but not bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description does tell the agent the return is a 'B2B profile URL,' which is the most important return detail. It omits failure modes, credit cost, and whether a matched vs unmatched email behaves differently, leaving gaps for a tool whose siblings imply a metered lookup API.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does add the key qualifier that the input is a work email rather than a personal one (distinguishing it from the find_personal_email flow). It adds nothing about format validity or handling of malformed addresses beyond the schema's format hint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find B2B profile URL using work email address,' and the 'reverse lookup' framing positions it as the inverse of find_email. It is clear without opening the schema, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 'reverse lookup' phrasing implies when to reach for it (you already have an email and want a profile), which contrasts implicitly with find_email. However, there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no named alternative, so usage is only implied.

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