clay_enrich_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or whether previous enrichment data is cached.

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?

A single sentence of 14 words that front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the required inputs. No redundancy or unnecessary 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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain what 'enrichment data' includes. It is adequate for a simple tool but lacks details on error conditions or response structure that would help an agent use it confidently.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning, merely listing the identifier types without clarifying syntax or constraints beyond 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 'Get full enrichment data for a specific person', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clay_enrich_company by focusing on individuals.

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 lists three ways to identify the person (email, LinkedIn URL, or full name+company), giving clear usage conditions. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like clay_search_people or advise when not to use.

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