find_decision_maker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost (5 credits if found) but fails to mention what happens if not found, rate limits, or any destructive behavior. The description is too sparse for a tool without annotation support.

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 sentence with a separate note on cost, conveying essential information without waste. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's primary function but lacks details on response structure (e.g., does it return just email or also name?), usage conditions, and behavioral nuances. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the parameter definitions are fully documented. The description adds context about 'verified email' and credit cost but does not enrich parameter meanings beyond schema. 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 tool description clearly specifies the action ('Find a verified email'), the target ('decision maker at a company'), and the method ('by role/category'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'find_email_by_person' (by name) and 'find_company_emails' (multiple company emails).

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 when a verified email for a company decision maker is needed by role, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'find_email_by_person' or 'find_email_by_linkedin'. No when-not or exclusions are provided.

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