enrich_personal_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=truetas, so the read-only and open-world aspects are covered. The description adds the cost (1 credit per email) and the requirement of at least one input URL, which are behavioral directives not in the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the action and then requirements. Every sentence adds information: purpose, input requirement, cost.

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 description covers the essential usage (input requirement) and cost. It doesn't elaborate on return format, but given no output schema and simple purpose, it's sufficient. Missing mention of pagination or handling of multiple emails, but not critical.

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 has 100% coverage for all 5 parameters. The description adds the crucial constraint that at least one of profile_url, twitter_profile_url, or facebook_profile_url must be provided, which is not evident from the schema alone (since all are optional). This adds significant usage semantics beyond the per-parameter descriptions.

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 verb and resource: 'Get personal email addresses of a person'. It specifies the resource (personal email addresses) and the action (get). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'enrich_work_email' or 'enrich_personal_contact', but the resource is specific enough to be distinct.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description tells the user what input to provide, but doesn't explain when to choose this over enrich_work_email or enrich_person_lookup. It lacks any exclusions or alternative references.

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