Enrich Website with Emails, Phones & Social Profiles

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

Discloses that it scrapes public data, costs 2 credits regardless of results, and that emails are generic. Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world; description adds useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Reasonably concise with clear sections (purpose, cost, category, usage advice). Slight repetition between first and third sentences but overall well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Covers what is extracted (emails, phones, social), generic email behavior, cost, and condition (charged even if no contacts). No output schema but sufficient 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?

Only one parameter (website_url) with 100% schema coverage. The description repeats the schema example exactly, adding no new semantic meaning. Acceptable but no added value.

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 it extracts emails, phones, and social profiles from a website, with a specific verb 'Enrich' and resource 'Website'. It distinguishes from sibling 'find_email' by noting generic vs specific emails.

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 explicit guidance: use this for generic contacts, and use 'find_email' for specific persons. Also mentions cost and charging even if no contacts found. Could mention alternatives for phone/social but sufficient.

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