crm_enrich_contact

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

Annotations already mark it destructive and not idempotent; the description adds that it executes under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is useful execution context. It does not disclose the side effects of enrichment or what the action changes, so credit is only partial.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: action, routing scope, then clean Args section. No filler, though a short example or expected-input hint would increase value.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety profile, but the core semantics of the action (what enrichment does, what inputs it needs) is left mostly to inference from the tool name and sibling names. This is workable for a generic dispatcher wrapper but not fully 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 has no descriptions, so the Args block carries the burden; it gives a brief meaning for both message and inputs. It does not specify expected JSON structure, required keys, or how message and inputs interact, so it is minimal but non-tautological.

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 specific verb ('run') and resource ('crm domain agent action enrich_contact'), and the routing line adds execution context. It does not describe what enrich_contact actually does or differentiate it from related siblings like crm_enrich_leads, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives; it only describes routing through the domain-agent dispatcher. The large sibling list includes related CRM enrichment tools, but the description never says when to choose this over them.

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