enrich_b2b_website_contacts_and_tech

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the scope of what is returned (emails, direct WhatsApp, socials, Tax IDs, detected platforms). It says nothing about cost/quota consumption, latency, batch behavior, or what happens when a URL yields nothing or is unreachable, all of which matter for a scraping-style enrichment call.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the extracted data types, with zero filler or marketing language. Nothing could be removed without losing factual 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the returned data fields, which partially substitutes for a missing output schema. It still leaves the response shape, per-URL failure handling, and batch limits unexplained, so it is adequate rather than 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 coverage is 100% for the single `urls` array parameter, so the schema already defines the input. The description only adds the qualifier that these are company websites, which is marginal but clarifying; it provides no format expectations (domain-only vs full URL with scheme), no batch-size limits, and no per-URL error semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Extract') plus an enumerated resource set: business emails, direct WhatsApp numbers, social links, Tax IDs, and named e-commerce/CRM tech stacks, all sourced from company URLs. That level of enumeration makes it unmistakable against every sibling, none of which deals with contact or tech-stack enrichment.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. plan quota, valid domain requirement), and no exclusion or alternative named. An agent can infer that it is an enrichment call for company websites, but nothing in the text tells it when this tool is the right choice versus other data-gathering options.

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