enrich_person_by_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses cost (1 credit), plan availability (free plan), and return data (job title, seniority, LinkedIn, company, phone). Does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but provides sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a line for best-for context. No redundant words. Front-loaded with purpose. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return values (job title, seniority, LinkedIn, company, phone). Covers cost, plan, workflow context. Distinguishes from siblings. Complete for a simple enrichment tool.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds workflow context (lead-gen) and plan requirements, but does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 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 full B2B profile using email. It specifies the resource (person), action (enrich), and scope (by email). It distinguishes from siblings like bulk_enrich_people and enrich_company by calling it the 'fastest and most reliable Apollo enrichment path'.

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?

Provides clear best-use scenario: having an email and wanting full profile. Implicitly recommends over alternatives by calling it 'fastest and most reliable'. Mentions cost and plan compatibility. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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