run_email_finder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level outcome and does not mention what happens when no email is found, whether the result is verified, limitations, rate limits, or any other behavioral details an agent would need to handle edge cases.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool.

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 simple lookup nature and complete schema, the description covers the basic purpose and inputs. However, since there are no annotations and no output schema, it omits return-value details and not-found or error behavior, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing and invoking the 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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely restates 'company domain, first name, and last name' without adding extra format details, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Finds') and a clear resource ('a professional email address for a person'), and lists the three required inputs. It clearly communicates the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like run_email_enrichment or run_linkedin_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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as run_email_enrichment or run_email_validation. The phrase 'given their company domain, first name, and last name' implies a precondition, but there are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, which is a significant gap given the large sibling set.

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