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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that – it does not say what happens to existing fields, whether it merges or overwrites, or what triggers enrichment, which matters for a mutation on network data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words – the verb and resource lead, and the scope qualifier ('professional details') follows efficiently.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return values. However, for a mutation tool it remains thin on what 'enrich' actually does operationally, leaving a gap the agent must infer.

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% and the single person_id parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or usage detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('a person in your noticed network') plus the kind of data added ('professional details'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling update_person, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between enriching and updating.

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 phrase 'missing or updated professional details' hints at a trigger condition but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_person or get_person. The agent is left to infer routing entirely.

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