enrich_b2b_domain

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what categories of data come back (useful), but says nothing about cost, rate limits, per-domain query expense, failure behavior for invalid domains, or whether 'verified' means SMTP or MX-level checks. For an enrichment tool that likely incurs per-call cost, these omissions are significant.

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 filler; the output categories are listed efficiently. It is lean, though the brevity leaves the gaps noted above rather than being wasteful.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain both behavior and return shape. It enumerates return categories but not their structure, and omits any mention of the maxItems parameter or operational constraints, leaving the definition incomplete for a two-parameter 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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description does not compensate: 'domains' is documented in the schema with an example, but 'maxItems' (default 10) is undocumented in both schema and description. There is also no hint about batching behavior or whether the cap applies per call or per domain.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and names the resource ('company domains') plus the concrete payloads returned (verified B2B emails, social links, MX provider, tech stack). This makes the tool distinguishable from fetch_ats_career_jobs and find_b2b_company_executive_leads, though the overlap with verify_bulk_emails_mx ('verified ... emails') is not explicitly addressed.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling verify_bulk_emails_mx as an alternative for email-only verification, and no prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb and the listed outputs.

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