clay_enrich_company

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-destructive read operation ('get enrichment data') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided.

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 extremely concise at 14 words over two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the purpose and the second providing parameter guidance. No filler or redundant 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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and input, it lacks information about the output format of the 'full enrichment data'. Given that there is no output schema, the description could be more helpful by hinting at what fields are returned.

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% with descriptions, but the description adds value by clarifying that the three parameters are alternatives ('provide domain, company name, or LinkedIn URL'). This goes beyond the schema which merely defines each parameter individually.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'full enrichment data for a specific company', distinguishing it from sibling tools like clay_search_companies (search) and clay_enrich_person (people). The additional instruction to provide domain, name, or LinkedIn URL adds specificity.

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 indicates what input to provide but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like clay_search_companies. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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