DYOE Contact Extraction ($0.01)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses the paid model ($0.01 USDC on Base, x402), that calls are batch-safe, and that output is structured JSON. Cost and payment mechanism are material traits an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about rate limits or failure behavior on unreachable sites.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is extracted, then the batch/agent framing, the input/return contract, and the price. Little waste; 'Returns structured JSON' earns its place given there is no output schema, though the sentence could be trimmed further.

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 single-parameter, annotation-covered tool with no output schema, the description covers what is extracted, input shape, return format, and the paid-call model — enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It is not fully complete because it omits any note on partial results or what happens when a site yields no contacts.

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% and the schema's url field already carries a concrete example (https://stripe.com). The description only restates 'Input: website URL', adding no format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (extract) and concrete resources (public business emails, phone numbers, social profiles) scoped to a website, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling dyoe_extract or dyoe_metadata, which could plausibly overlap, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Batch-safe contact enrichment for autonomous agents' implies a high-volume enrichment context, and the URL-only input implies one site per call. However, it never states when to prefer this over dyoe_extract or any other sibling, nor any exclusions (e.g. pages behind auth), so usage is only implied.

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