hunter_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It conveys that this is a read-only search and describes the Markdown return format, but does not disclose potential rate limits, failure behavior, authentication needs, or region restrictions beyond examples. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, then Args, then Returns. Every line earns its place with no repetition of schema defaults or generic filler.

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 3-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format sufficiently. It lacks explicit exclusions or edge-case guidance, but nothing essential for a basic correct call is missing.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does: query accepts operators, max_results ranges from 1 to 20, and region includes concrete examples like 'br-pt' and 'wt-wt'. This compensates well for the empty schema 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 states a specific action ('Pesquisa na Web/Google') and output (links, titles, summaries). This clearly distinguishes hunter_search from siblings like scrape_website or extract_contacts, which target different resources.

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 makes the intended context explicit — generic web/Google search — and even documents advanced query operators. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling tools are clearly different enough that the context is unambiguous.

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