enrich_lead

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it consumes enrichment credits per call, requires an API key, updates the stored lead in place, returns it, and does not create duplicates — but running it twice still bills twice. This gives the agent crucial cost and side-effect information not present in the schema or 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?

The description is three purposeful sentences with no filler: it front-loads the main purpose and fields, gives sequencing guidance, and then discloses cost and idempotency behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the warnings are directly actionable.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations already present, the description covers purpose, when to use, prerequisites, cost, mutation behavior, return behavior, and idempotency. There is no output schema, but the statement that it returns the updated lead is sufficient for this low-complexity 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?

The only parameter, leadId, is already fully described in the schema as a 'Lead UUID from list_leads,' so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate because no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 opens with 'Fill in a saved lead's missing person and company detail' and lists concrete fields like seniority, department, LinkedIn, phone, company size, and industry. This specific verb-resource pairing clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_leads or discover_companies.

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 explicitly says to use the tool one lead at a time, after list_leads has supplied the id, and typically before writing outreach that needs context. It also gives a clear when-not-to condition: check the lead first, because enriching an already-complete lead wastes credits.

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