domain_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that results are 'current people' and lists filter capabilities, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or any behavioral side effects beyond what annotations already indicate.

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 compact sentence with no filler. Every word contributes value, and the core action plus filter list is front-loaded effectively.

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?

With 13 parameters, nested objects, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is far from sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It provides only a high-level summary of filter types and does not cover numerous parameters or return expectations.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names several filter categories (verification, location, job-title, decision-maker, aggregation, offset) that map to schema parameters, but it omits core inputs such as domain, company, limit, type, seniority, department, and required_field, leaving those without any added meaning.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Hunter v2 emails for one domain/company'), clearly indicating a domain-level email search tool. It distinguishes from person-level tools like email_finder, though it doesn't explicitly name any sibling to differentiate from.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like email_finder or email_enrichment. It implies domain/company lookup but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison context, leaving tool selection to inference.

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