Find a contact's email address

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it searches across accounts, sources results from exchanged emails, ignores accents/Greek tonos, and returns addresses with frequency and recency.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core lookup behavior is front-loaded, followed by return-value context.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description covers the essential scope, data source, normalization behavior, and return shape. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying how the account parameter interacts with the stated 'ALL accounts' behavior.

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 explains name, max, and account. The description still adds value by clarifying that the name may refer to a person or company, that accents are ignored, and that default lookup spans all accounts, though it does not explain the account parameter's filtering role.

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 states a specific verb and resource: look up email addresses for a person or company by name. It adds scope (across all accounts, from exchanged emails) and accent normalization, making the operation clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_emails.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to resolve a name to email addresses based on prior correspondence. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives like search_emails or list_accounts.

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