intelx_phonebook

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of returning a search ID (implying asynchronous retrieval) and requires an API key. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it explain how the ID is used or any limitations/timeout. 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 three clear sentences: the first explains what the tool does, the second states the return value, and the third mentions a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, there is no filler, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

The description explains the action and return value, but omits the necessary follow-up step: that the returned search ID is used with the sibling tool 'intelx_phonebook_results' to fetch actual data. It also lacks any mention of error handling or ID expiration. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this is a clear gap in completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, only implicitly mapping the search types to the 'target' parameter. It does not clarify the meaning of 'term' or 'max_results' any further, so the schema is the primary source of semantics.

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 ('Initiate') and resource ('phonebook search on IntelligenceX'), and clearly states what kind of data it finds (emails, domains, URLs). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'intelx_phonebook_results' by emphasizing that this tool returns a search ID rather than results.

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 clearly implies the use case: start a phonebook search and receive an ID, which hints that a subsequent call to the results tool is needed. It also mentions a prerequisite (API key). However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this over other search tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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