enrich_person

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 the credit cost per match and hints at matching behavior, but does not explain failure scenarios (e.g., if no match found, does it still cost?), or whether the tool is read-only or modifies data. It lacks details on rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 with two lines. The first line states the core purpose ('Enrich a single person...'), and the second covers critical usage details (cost, required fields). No unnecessary words, and information is 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?

Given 9 parameters fully described in schema, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the tool's function and input requirements. It lacks explicit output structure details but the intended output (email, phone, profile) is clear from the purpose. Minor gap in explaining what 'detailed profile' includes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting important combinations (name+domain, LinkedIn URL, email) and mentioning credit cost, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It gives actionable advice for effective use.

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's purpose: 'Enrich a single person to get their email, phone, and detailed profile.' It uses specific verbs ('Enrich', 'get') and identifies the resource ('single person'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bulk_enrich_people' by specifying 'single person'.

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 guidance: costs 1 credit, requires name+domain, LinkedIn URL, or email, and suggests providing as many fields as possible. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'bulk_enrich_people' for multiple enrichments.

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