enrich_by_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context about the cost (0.05 credits) and the one-at-a-time behavior. This goes beyond annotations, though it does not detail the exact data returned (but an output schema exists).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and cost, with the bulk alternative clearly stated. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with a rich output schema and clear annotations, the description covers cost, scope, and bulk alternative. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema is 100% covered; the email parameter is described as 'Email address to look up'. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 enriches exactly one email, using a specific verb ('Enrich') and resource ('email'), and contrasts with bulk enrichment via 'ONE' and the mention of create_batch_enrichment. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like enrich_by_handle.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: it is for single email enrichment, and for bulk (>10 emails) it directs to an alternative tool (`create_batch_enrichment`). This gives a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use rule.

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