enrich_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does add useful behavioral context: ~240 token output, 140ms latency, 'verified' data, and specific returned signals. It does not disclose failure modes, data freshness, auth needs, or what happens for unsupported domains, so coverage is 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?

One dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and then lists high-value specifics such as token count, latency, and output categories. There is no filler or duplication of schema content.

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 summarizes output categories well and gives a clear input signal, but it omits error behavior, usage boundaries against siblings, and any caveats about data verification or availability. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, a bit more context would be needed for full confidence.

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% and the domain parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('verified, token-minified B2B company firmographics'), and it itemizes the returned data categories, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like detect_technology or batch_enrich_companies, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need firmographic enrichment for a single company domain. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no routing to batch_enrich_companies for multiple domains.

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