enrich_person

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses credit costs (1 normal, 8 with phone), required identifiers, and that some options require a paid plan. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies data or is read-only, nor describe rate limits or error behavior. Still, it is fairly transparent about key behavioral traits.

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 (three sentences plus a list) yet packs purpose, use case, cost, and identifier requirements. It is front-loaded with the core action and progressively adds details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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?

While the description covers cost, required identifiers, and suggests alternatives, it lacks a description of the return value (what fields are returned upon enrichment). With no output schema, this omission hurts completeness for an 8-parameter tool. It also does not mention failure scenarios (e.g., no match).

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 each parameter already has a detailed description (e.g., 'Strongly recommended — significantly improves match accuracy' for domain). The description adds context about requiring at least one identifier and cost implications, but the schema already handles meaning well. 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 enriches a person's B2B profile by name and an identifier. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'enrich_person_by_email' (for email-only) and suggests 'hunter_find_email' as a cheaper alternative. The verb 'enrich' plus resource 'person's B2B profile' is specific and actionable.

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 says 'Best for: enriching a contact when you have name + employer but no email yet' and suggests considering 'hunter_find_email first'. It also notes cost differences for reveal_phone_number. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and when to consider alternatives.

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