Bulk Enrich People (Apollo)

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it consumes credits, applies reveal flags to every person, requires webhookUrl for phone reveal, respects Apollo's hard rate limit (20/min), and emits MCP progress notifications. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) are consistent and the description enriches them with operational details.

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 moderate in length (few sentences) and front-loads the main action. Each sentence adds necessary detail (chunking, concurrency, retry, credit consumption, rate limits, progress notifications). Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'bounded concurrency' and explicit concurrency parameter), but overall efficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully specifies the return format: { total, succeeded, failed, creditsConsumed, requestIds, results[] } with input order. It covers all behavioral aspects (rate limits, credit cost, per-item isolation, progress notifications). For a tool with 6 parameters, concurrency, and multiple constraints, this is exceptionally complete.

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% (all 6 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by: clarifying credit consumption tied to reveal flags, explaining that results preserve input order, and noting that revealPhoneNumber requires webhookUrl (already in schema but reinforced). It also mentions progress notifications related to progressToken, which is not in the schema.

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 clearly states 'Enrich up to 100 people via Apollo in one call,' specifying the verb (enrich), resource (people), and scope (up to 100). It distinguishes itself from siblings like apollo_person_enrich (single person) and apollo_people_search (search) implicitly through the batch nature.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: churns into bulk_match calls, fans out with bounded concurrency, retries HTTP 429, isolates per-item failures, and warns about credit consumption and rate limits. It advises confirming total credit cost with the user. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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