OSINT MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Find someone's work email address' implies a lookup/query operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: success rates, data sources, privacy/ethical considerations, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no email is found. For an OSINT tool with no annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It leads with the core purpose in a single clear sentence, then provides parameter explanations in a clean Args section. Every sentence earns its place - the first establishes purpose, the three parameter lines provide essential context. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 that an output schema exists (which should describe the return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a 3-parameter OSINT tool with no annotations, the description should do more to explain behavioral context - success conditions, limitations, data sources. The parameter explanations are good, but the overall context for how and when this tool works is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate - and it does by clearly explaining all three parameters in the Args section. Each parameter (domain, first_name, last_name) gets a brief but meaningful explanation that adds semantic context beyond the bare schema. The description successfully clarifies that 'domain' means 'Company domain' and that the names refer to the person whose email is being sought.

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's purpose: 'Find someone's work email address' - a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('work email address'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'osint_email_search' and 'osint_email_verify' by focusing on finding a specific person's work email rather than general email searching or verification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools in the OSINT domain (like osint_email_search, osint_person_enrich, osint_linkedin_find), there's no indication of when this specific email finder is appropriate versus other tools that might find email addresses through different methods or with different inputs.

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