waterfall_find_decision_maker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does contribute real behavior: a four-stage provider sequence with explicit fallback order and a 'strict generic alias filtering' rule that signals results exclude info@/sales@ style addresses. It omits what happens on failure (empty result vs. error), whether the waterfall consumes paid API credits or is slow across four providers, and what the returned record looks like.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the tool's identity and then the stage chain. The nested parentheses and arrow notation are dense but every token conveys pipeline information; readability, not verbosity, is the only weakness.

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 multi-provider enrichment tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what an agent receives (name only, name+title+email, multiple candidates?) and how to interpret a failed waterfall. Those omissions are material for a tool whose whole job is producing a contact record.

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 100%, so domain, company_name, and job_category are already documented in the schema at baseline 3. The description adds indirect context by naming 'Executive Name Lookup' as a stage, loosely mapping to the job_category default of 'executive', but it never explains how job_category changes the waterfall or which category values map to which providers.

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 names the tool as an 'OpenProspector 4-stage waterfall enrichment' and enumerates the providers and fallback chain, so the mechanism is specific. However, it never states the actual outcome (does it return a person's name, an email, a ranked contact list?), so an agent must infer the purpose from the tool name rather than the description.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (scrape_clean_markdown, scan_live_ats_career_ops, validate_outreach_payload, prepare_linkedin_outreach_for_approval) it should be preferred over. The only implied usage is 'given a company, find a decision maker,' which is left to inference.

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