Enrich Organization (Apollo)

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

Description adds credit consumption cost ('Consumes 1 credit when a record is enriched') beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. No contradictions present.

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?

Four sentences with no waste: first sentence lists output fields, second gives input requirements, third covers cost, fourth provides alternative. Purpose is front-loaded and structure is clear.

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?

Covers key aspects: purpose, input requirements, credit cost, and alternative guidance. Could be improved by describing return format or error behavior, but given the annotations and listed fields, it is fairly complete for an enrichment tool.

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?

Description adds the constraint that at least one of domain, name, website, or linkedinUrl is required, which is not enforced in the schema (0 required params). It also mentions the 'fields' parameter for projection. With 40% schema coverage, this compensates well.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches full firmographics for one company via Apollo and lists specific fields (industry, keywords, employee count, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the Lassox MCP for Danish companies, indicating use for non-DK or Apollo-specific needs.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool vs. the Lassox MCP for Danish companies, and states required identifiers ('Provide at least one of domain, name, website, or linkedinUrl'), giving clear context and an alternative.

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