find_email

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

Discloses behavioral details: generates ~50 permutations, performs SMTP verification, returns result or not_found, charges 10 Fox Credits. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains the process, result, and credits comprehensively. Lacks details on timeouts or errors, but is otherwise sufficient.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minor value by noting middle_name is optional for more permutations, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

States verb 'Find', resource 'business email', and scope 'ONE person's' from name and domain. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like find_emails (plural) and verify_email (verification only).

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?

Describes the process: generates permutations, SMTP-verifies, returns best match or not_found, charges credits. Implies this is for single email finding, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives.

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