hunter_verify_email

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

The description simply says 'Verify an email address' without explaining what verification entails (e.g., syntax check, domain check, SMTP verification), potential failure modes, or reliance on the api_key parameter. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden but does not fulfill it.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load key information beyond the basic purpose. It could be improved while remaining terse.

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 absence of an output schema, annotations, and detailed parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, potential errors, rate limits, or authentication specifics, which are critical for a verification tool.

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?

The schema has two parameters (email, api_key) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the api_key parameter or how it is used. It adds no meaning beyond the basic action, leaving the agent to infer the purpose of the parameters.

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 action ('verify'), the resource ('an email address'), and the service ('with Hunter.io'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hunter_domain_info and hunter_find_email by focusing on verification of a single email.

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 guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hunter_domain_info or hunter_find_email. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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