Personal Email Finder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read operation needing authentication, potential rate limits, privacy/legal caveats, or what happens if no personal email is found. For a lookup tool with no structural safety hints, this is a significant gap.

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 sentences, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it. However, it omits behavioral details like error handling, coverage, or alternative fallbacks, which an agent would need for reliable invocation.

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 mentions 'B2B profile URLs' which clarifies the expected input type for profile_url, but doesn't specify format, domain restrictions, or examples. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, warranting a 4 rather than a 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Find personal email addresses from B2B profile URLs.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling find_email (which likely finds professional emails) and social_to_work_email. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

States when to use it: 'when professional emails are not available.' This is a clear context cue. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (e.g., find_email) or state exclusions like rate limits or coverage limitations, so it falls short of a 5.

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