find_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function. It does not disclose side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens when no email is found. The lack of output schema exacerbates the gap.

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 concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and inputs. Every word adds value, and there is no superfluous content.

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 complexity (array of objects, optional boolean parameters, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain batch behavior, what the tool returns, or how it integrates with sibling tools. More context would be needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds clarity by grouping inputs ('first/last name + domain or company name'), but this is largely redundant with the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: finding business email addresses given a person's name and company. It specifies the required inputs (first/last name + domain or company name), distinguishing it from siblings like find_mobiles or find_people.

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 implies usage for finding emails but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives from the sibling list (e.g., find_people, validate_emails). It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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