Mobile Finder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to. It says nothing about credit consumption (notable given the sibling get_credits), rate limits, whether all three inputs can be combined, what happens on a miss, or what the response contains.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second sentence is marketing filler that consumes half the description without adding operational value.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should be doing much more. It omits cost, failure behavior, input combination rules, and return shape for a lookup tool in a crowded sibling set.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: it names all three inputs (profile URL, work email, personal email), which maps cleanly onto the three undocumented properties. However it gives no format, precedence, or fallback semantics, leaving the schema's bare definitions under-explained.

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 (Find) and resource (mobile phone numbers), and enumerates the input methods. This distinguishes it from the email-focused siblings like find_email and find_personal_email by the resource it returns, though it doesn't call that distinction out explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to choose find_mobile over find_email, find_personal_email, or email_to_profile, nor on which input to prefer when several are known. The closing sentence ('for better outreach and communication') is promotional and adds no selection criteria.

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