find_emails_bulk

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

The description reveals the key behavioral trait that annotations cannot convey: the operation is asynchronous and returns a batch id for polling. This adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint flags. It does not mention potential rate limits or error handling, but the async disclosure is the most critical behavioral detail needed to call the tool correctly.

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 with zero filler. The purpose and scale are front-loaded, followed immediately by the asynchronous workflow. Every sentence earns its place; the polling instruction is directly actionable.

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 covers the core purpose and async flow, and names the polling sibling. However, for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and a nested search object, it leaves gaps: the required search fields, the meaning of country_code/retrieve_gender, and how results are structured are not explained. The guidance is sufficient for a basic call with the required parameter, but not for confident use of the optional enrichment parameters.

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 description coverage is only 50%: searches and retrieve_company_info have brief descriptions, while country_code and retrieve_gender are undocumented. The tool description does not compensate by explaining the structure of search objects (e.g., fullname is required) or the effect of the optional parameters. An agent would have to infer the meaning of country_code and retrieve_gender from names alone.

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 verb ('Find'), the resource ('multiple email addresses'), and the mode ('in bulk'), with a specific batch limit of 5,000. This naturally distinguishes it from the single-email find_email and the verify_emails_bulk sibling tools, while the asynchronous note separates it from get_emails_bulk_result.

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 explicitly outlines the required workflow: start the bulk operation, receive a batch id, then poll get_emails_bulk_result. This tells the agent exactly how to use the tool in sequence with its sibling. It does not explicitly state when to prefer bulk over single email lookup, but that is reasonably implied by the tool name and the batch limit caveat.

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