Enrich a company by domain name. Returns company name, country, contact emails, phone numbers, and social media profiles (LinkedIn, Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Company domain, e.g. 'stripe.com' or 'https://stripe.com' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output fields but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, if any side effects occur, or how it handles invalid or non-existent domains. The 'enrich' term implies a lookup but remains ambiguous.
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: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and input, followed by a compact list of return fields. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition.
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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers its main purpose and outputs. However, it lacks details on failure modes, output shape, or field availability, and it does not reference the sibling alternative. It is minimally viable 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 description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents the 'domain' parameter with examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond specifying 'by domain name', which is already present in the schema. The baseline of 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 description clearly states the tool's action ('Enrich a company') and its primary input ('by domain name'), and lists the returned data categories. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'enrich_company_by_name', which enriches by name instead.
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 company domain is known, but it does not explicitly mention the sibling tool 'enrich_company_by_name' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It only states the input, leaving the comparison to alternatives implicit.
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.
The two tools are clearly distinguished by their lookup key: one uses domain, the other uses company name. The names directly indicate the difference, and the descriptions reinforce it, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to use.
Both tools follow the exact pattern 'enrich_company_by_<key>', making the naming scheme perfectly consistent. The verb 'enrich' and noun 'company' are maintained, and the differentiator is the final suffix.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a general 'company intelligence' purpose, although it could be sufficient for a niche enrichment service. The count is borderline and would benefit from additional lookup methods or related operations.
The two tools cover the primary enrichment needs: by domain and by name, both returning comprehensive data. Minor gaps like enrichment by email or phone could be added, but the core functionality is present for the stated domain intelligence purpose.
