verify_emails

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

The description discloses important behaviors: it waits for completion, handles large lists with a jobId fallback, charges 1 Fox Credit per email, and returns results similar to verify_email. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it covers cost and async behavior but does not explicitly state if it is read-only or mutating.

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 with two sentences covering purpose, behavior, cost, and fallback. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) but is efficient overall.

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 is relatively complete: it explains the one-result-per-email output format (referencing verify_email) and the jobId polling mechanism. Given no output schema, it provides adequate context for the agent to understand the return value.

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 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the wait parameter's default behavior (true) and effect, and notes the list size limits are already in schema. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that setting wait false yields a jobId for polling.

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 bulk-verifies a list of email addresses, explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling tool verify_email (single email). The verb 'Bulk-verify' and the resource 'list of email addresses' are specific.

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 provides good usage context: 'Best for cleaning lead lists' and mentions when to poll with get_job. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with find_email(s) alternatives.

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