Enrich Company with Website Technologies

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses the cost (2 credits per call), the fact that credits are charged even if no tech is detected, and the categories of technologies detected. This adds valuable behavioral context.

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 (a few lines), front-loads the core purpose and detected technologies, and every sentence adds value (cost, category, usage hint, credit policy). No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description outlines the types of technologies detected, which implies the output structure. It also covers cost and credit implications. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is fairly complete, though explicit output format (e.g., list or JSON) is missing.

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 single parameter 'website_url' has schema description 'Choose Website URL', which is identical in the tool description. No additional meaning or format guidance is provided. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter semantics.

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 tool's title 'Enrich Company with Website Technologies' and description explicitly state it detects CMS, framework, analytics, CDN, hosting on a website. This clearly identifies the purpose and distinguishes it from sibling enrichment tools like derrick_enrich_companies or derrick_find_email.

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 mentions it's 'useful for qualifying prospects by stack', providing context for use. However, it does not specify when to avoid using it or suggest alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., derrick_search_companies for company data). Usage guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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