enrich-person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it uses Apollo.io and returns a full profile, but it does not disclose important constraints such as the need to provide at least one identifier (the schema marks all parameters optional) or what happens if insufficient data is given. The description also omits the 'domain' parameter, which may lead to confusion about accepted inputs.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two sentences. The key action and inputs are front-loaded, and the mention of Apollo.io is a useful additional context. Every word earns its place with 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?

Without an output schema, the description should provide more detail about the returned 'full professional profile.' It also fails to explain that parameters are optional but at least one is presumably needed. However, the tool is simple and the description covers the primary use case, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is individually documented. The description adds a slight grouping ('name, email, or LinkedIn URL') that implies these are alternative identifiers, but it does not clarify the role of 'domain' or how parameters combine. This is baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full professional profile for a person'), and further specifies the input methods (name, email, or LinkedIn URL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like enrich-company (for companies) and find-email (for finding emails) by focusing on person enrichment.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need a full professional profile from identifying information. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., search-people), so it stops short of full explicit exclusion guidance.

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