generate_support_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal that the tool may perform SMTP verification (evident only from the 'fromEmail' parameter), does not mention potential side effects like sending emails, and is vague about what 'valid and active' means. This lack of transparency could lead an agent to misuse the 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?

The description is short but poorly structured and ungrammatical. The first sentence is a run-on and confusing, and the second sentence is a fragment. It is not concise in an effective way because the wording obscures meaning rather than clarifying it.

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?

The tool is moderately complex due to potential SMTP verification and multiple parameters, but the description does not explain return values, response format, or behavioral nuances. It does not address edge cases like catch-all domains or rate limiting. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes this incomplete for a reliable tool 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 100%, with each parameter clearly described. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at 'group email patterns' which loosely connects to the 'emails' parameter. Since the schema handles parameter meaning well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 attempts to convey that the tool checks support email addresses at a domain, but the grammar is ambiguous ('generate group of support email addresses are valid and active'). It mentions 'Checks common group email patterns,' which gives some indication of the purpose, but it fails to clearly specify whether it generates or verifies emails, and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like verify_email or guess_email.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context for selection, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing MX records or avoiding catch-all domains. The phrase 'Checks common group email patterns' implies a use case, but the agent is left without clear direction.

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