enrich_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return value (firmographic data) and scope (no person-level details), but omits behavioral traits like mutation safety, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with essential purpose, no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 the simple nature (2 params, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does, input, and output type. Minor gap: no mention of whether it requires authentication beyond the optional api_key.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds context by explaining that enrichment is done by domain and that person-level details are excluded, adding value beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 'enrich', resource 'company', method 'by domain', and specifies it returns firmographic data without person-level details, distinguishing it from sibling tools like enrich_lead and find_email.

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?

It indicates best use for account-level research (industry, size, revenue, etc.), providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond sibling names.

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