Find decision makers at a company

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return contents (names, titles, emails), but omits notable behavior: the async job model suggested by wait_seconds and the likely credit cost implied by scrupp_credits/scrupp_get_job siblings. The not-read-only hint also goes unexplained.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return shape. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 tool with no output schema and a non-read-only, externally-facing profile, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately. It is still thin on the asynchronous job behavior, credit consumption, and result limits (max up to 2500) that an agent would want before invoking.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'where found' caveat on emails and no extra syntax or format detail for find_by/companies, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (decision makers) and the three lookup identifiers (domain, LinkedIn URL, name), plus what it returns. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like scrupp_find_emails or scrupp_lookup_company.

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 phrase 'a company you only know the domain, LinkedIn URL or name of' implies the eligibility condition for using it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no sibling is named as an alternative for other cases.

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