Email Finder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context that the tool returns 'verified' addresses by combining multiple data sources with high accuracy, but it omits cost/credit implications, failure behavior when no email is found, permissions, and return structure.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, then adds relevant sourcing/accuracy context.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the domain parameter, output format, failure cases, or cost, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 compensate. It conceptually covers first_name, last_name, and company_name, but the optional 'domain' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving one of four parameters unexplained in both the schema and description.

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 clear verb and resource: find a verified email address for a person at a company. It implicitly distinguishes professional emails from personal ones, which differentiates it from the sibling find_personal_email, but it does not explicitly name or contrast alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_email, find_personal_email, or social_to_work_email. The description gives a basic input context ('person's name and company') but no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing advice.

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