Leads del enriquecimiento masivo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a real constraint beyond the schema: per_page is capped at 200 (schema only says default 50). It does not explain pagination termination, ordering, or whether the job must be finished first.

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 what it returns, then the pagination cap, then the alternative. No waste, though it is arguably under-filled given the undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage and only one parameter described, an agent cannot know how to build a filtered or matched query. The definition is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only per_page gets meaning; the two enums (only: all/with_phone/with_email/with_both and match: all/exact/related) and the semantics of page/task_id are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: returns enriched leads from a bulk job, paginated. This distinguishes it from get_bulk_status (which reports job state) and get_bulk_download_link (which exports), though it never names those siblings explicitly as alternatives beyond the download link.

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?

Gives one explicit routing rule: for large lists, offer get_bulk_download_link rather than paginating everything into the conversation. Clear context, but no guidance on when to use this versus get_bulk_status or preview_bulk_enrichment, and no preconditions on task_id state.

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