enrich_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions data sources (Fiber AI, LLM, Perplexity), caching (30 days), and the fields returned. This gives sufficient transparency for an enrichment tool, though rate limits or error behavior are not mentioned.

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 two sentences: first states the action and data sources, second lists return fields, caching, and input requirement. No fluff, crucial information front-loaded.

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?

The description lists all return fields and mentions caching. No output schema exists, but the returned data is clearly enumerated. It lacks guidance on failure cases or resolution quality, but for a data enrichment tool it is reasonably complete.

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 adds value by explaining that email is the best identifier and that name+company or LinkedIn URL are fallbacks. It also groups inputs into the required 'at least one' condition, which the schema does not convey.

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 a person's professional profile using Fiber AI, LLM, and Perplexity. It lists specific return fields and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_linkedin_profile by combining multiple data sources and naming the enrichment action.

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?

The description explicitly states the required inputs: 'Provide at least one of: email, name + company, or LinkedIn URL.' This guides the agent on when to use the tool. It does not compare to sibling tools or give when-not-to-use scenarios, but the input requirement is clear.

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