crm_enrich_leads

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

Annotations already signal a destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only operation, but the description adds no context about what side effects occur or what data may be modified. Mentioning JWT/tenant/company scoping is useful but doesn't disclose the behavior that matters.

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 compact and organized, with an action line, a routing context line, and a short Args list. Minimal fluff, though the opening line is near-tautological.

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 generic domain-agent dispatcher with a destructive annotation and two free-form parameters, the description omits critical context: what leads will be enriched, what enriched means operationally, and what the caller should supply in message/inputs. The output schema may cover return shape, but invocation guidance is incomplete.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does say message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string', but it provides no examples, no expected structure, and no guidance on how these two params interact.

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 only restates the action name ('Run the crm domain agent action enrich_leads') and describes routing mechanics, not what the action actually does. An agent cannot determine what 'enrich_leads' accomplishes or how it differs from siblings like crm_enrich_contact or crm_lead_qualification.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It names the dispatcher mechanism but never states what conditions should prompt an agent to invoke this tool over the many CRM sibling tools.

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