find_email

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

The description discloses the fallback mechanism between two providers, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or whether the tool modifies data, though the read-only nature is implied.

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 two sentences, no unnecessary words, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence provides 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?

Given the tool uses external APIs and fallback, the description covers the essential flow. However, it lacks mention of what happens when both providers fail (e.g., returns null) or any success/error output details, though output schema is present.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no new parameter-specific details, only overall logic, so score is at baseline.

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 clearly states the tool finds an email address given name and domain, using a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like enrich_lead by focusing on email lookup with fallback strategy.

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 description explains when to use this tool (for email finding) and mentions the fallback behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like enrich_company for company-level enrichment.

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