Enrich — Company Domain Intelligence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields (name, country, emails, phones, socials), but says nothing about unknown/invalid domains, rate limits, credit cost, or whether the call is a safe read-only lookup.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and keying input; the enumerated return fields are informative rather than padding. No wasted clauses.

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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields is necessary and it does so thoroughly. The remaining gap is behavioral (failure modes, cost, permissions) which is notable given the absence of annotations, but for a simple single-parameter lookup the coverage is largely adequate.

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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the domain format with examples. The description adds only the framing that enrichment is keyed on the domain, no additional syntax or normalization detail.

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 states a specific verb (enrich) and resource (company) plus the keying input (domain name), and the phrase 'by domain name' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling enrich_company_by_name. It never names that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

It implies the tool is used when you have a domain, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions the alternative enrich_company_by_name for when only a company name is available. The routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned data (domain, country, emails, phones, social profiles) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about cost/credits, rate limits, auth, or the risk of partial-match false positives.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and matching mode, then the return payload. No filler, though the return enumeration is slightly list-heavy for the space.

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 single-parameter read/enrichment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching mode, and return shape. What is missing is the relationship to its sibling tool and any operational constraints.

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 there is only one parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3). The description adds the partial-match semantics, which is genuinely beyond the schema, but no syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond that single phrase.

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 a specific verb (enrich) and resource (company), plus the matching mode (by name, partial match). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling enrich_company, leaving the agent to infer that the sibling is for a different identifier type.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling enrich_company as an alternative. The parenthetical '(partial match)' hints at the input condition but stops short of routing the agent between the two enrichment tools.

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