Waterfall enrich person

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

Annotations only cover read/write and open-world hints; the description goes well beyond by disclosing cost governance (paid tiers halt at budget exhaustion), the exact provider order attempted, cache-related behavior implied by force_refresh, and the response shape (status, confidence, cost `trail`). It also declares data boundaries: no email sending, no phone exposure. This is exactly the extra context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and waterfall order, then cost behavior, then return shape, then required input form, then exclusions. Four dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries operational information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by explaining what each person comes back with (email status, confidence, and a trail of attempts and costs). Combined with the cost/budget semantics and identifier requirements, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates the five acceptable ways to identify a person (prospect_id, apollo_id, linkedin_url, an email, or first_name + last_name + domain) and the 1-25 cardinality, clarifying that the nested object fields are alternative identifiers rather than required together. It does not explain max_credits vs the budget narrative or verify_with_hunter's cost tradeoff in detail.

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+resource (find and verify a work email for people) and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the mechanism: a cost-aware waterfall of Apollo -> Hunter finder -> optional Hunter verifier -> free local checks. An agent can tell this apart from sdr_verify_email (verification only) and sdr_enrich_company (companies) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use: supply 1-25 people, each identified by one of five identifier forms, and paid tiers stop when budget runs out. It also states explicit exclusions (does NOT send email or reveal phones), which bounds the tool. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to prefer when only verification (sdr_verify_email) or search (sdr_search_people) is needed.

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