Enrich a single company with domain, description, industry, employee band, social profiles, and (where available) email patterns.
Wraps nexgendata/company-enrichment-tool. Accepts either a free-form
company name ("Stripe") or a domain ("stripe.com").
Args: domain_or_name: Company name or domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain_or_name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds transparency by naming the underlying tool (nexgendata/company-enrichment-tool) and explicitly listing the enrichment fields. No contradictions.
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?
Three sentences front-load the purpose, specify source, and explain input. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers input format and output contents. It lacks error handling or limitations, but overall is sufficient for correct invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds critical meaning: it clarifies that domain_or_name accepts either a company name or domain, and provides examples ('Stripe', 'stripe.com'). This goes beyond the schema's bare type declaration.
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 'Enrich a single company' and enumerates the specific fields added: domain, description, industry, employee band, social profiles, and email patterns. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_company_emails or detect_tech_stack which focus on narrower aspects.
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 for a single company and specifies acceptable input formats (name or domain), but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like enrich_lead_list or detect_tech_stack.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct sales intelligence function: from company profiling, tech detection, hiring signals, to lead finding and enrichment. Even the two enrichment tools (enrich_company vs. aggregate_company_profile) are clearly differentiated by depth and features.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., aggregate_company_profile, detect_tech_stack, find_b2b_leads). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
10 tools is well-scoped for a sales intelligence server, covering the full pipeline from prospecting to enrichment and signal detection. It's neither too sparse nor overwhelming.
The tool set covers end-to-end sales research: lead generation, company enrichment, tech stack detection, hiring signals, email finding, YC directory, job search, and funding tracking. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.