enrich_by_handle

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the cost of 1 credit, the data scope, and the existence of a cheaper raw variant, which is useful operational context. No contradictions with 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by cost and alternatives. No 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?

With a complete input schema, output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the key decision factors (cost, single vs bulk, full vs raw). It leaves out error-handling details, but these are not required given the rich structured metadata.

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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics load. The description mentions data categories that loosely relate to include_audience_data but does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what is already present.

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 states a specific action ('Enrich ONE creator by handle') and lists the data domains (email, demographics, audience, income, brand deals). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming create_batch_enrichment for bulk and enrich_by_handle_raw for basic data.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use create_batch_enrichment for bulk (>10 handles) and enrich_by_handle_raw for basic profile data. It also signals the cost trade-off (1 credit vs 0.03), helping the agent choose the right tool.

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