bulk_enrich_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses constraints (max 1000 rows, cost per line, plan requirement) and the three input modes, but does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, directly stating the purpose, constraints, use case, and input modes. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant information, though a bulleted list could improve readability.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers inputs and constraints but does not detail the output structure or how to interpret the results. It mentions the types of returned data but lacks specificity, leaving agents potentially uncertain about the response format.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the three input modes for rows and the role of 'ref'. However, it does not describe 'radius_m' and 'max_matches' beyond what the schema provides (defaults and limits), missing an opportunity to clarify their semantic impact.

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 cross-references a user-provided list with French permits to retrieve multiple data points (proximity permits, opportunity score, risks, zoning, cadastre). It specifies the max list size, use case, and distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on single aspects.

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 identifies the use case (enriching prospect/asset lists) and explains input modes. However, it does not explicitly tell when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for specific data types, though the context of sibling tools implies differentiation.

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