contact_research

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions using specific search engines and generating conversation intelligence, but does not disclose limitations (e.g., contact not found), rate limits, or whether the tool modifies data. The description implies a read-only research operation but lacks explicit safety cues.

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 sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose, then details on methods and outputs. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Very efficient.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and outputs adequately. However, it lacks information on error handling, success criteria, and limitations (e.g., required email format for enrichment). For a research tool generating conversation intelligence, more details on output structure or reliability could improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond schema for each parameter, but the overall context of researching and enriching contacts helps understand parameter usage. No additional parameter details are provided in the description.

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 researches contacts using Perplexity Sonar Pro and deep web search, with specific outputs like profile enrichment and conversation intelligence. It distinguishes from sibling tools like enrich_person (basic enrichment) and get_person_object (simple retrieval) through its multi-source triangulation and conversation prep focus.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like enrich_person, prospect_research, or meeting_prep_* tools. The description implies use for deep research and conversation prep, but doesn't specify exclusions or alternatives.

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