enrich_lead

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It does so by explaining the cascading/concurrent execution flow for different input combinations, which adds significant value beyond the schema. However, it omits aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or data persistence.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence is essential and adds value. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 tool's complexity (multiple providers, cascading logic), the description fully covers input requirements and execution flow. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. This leaves no critical gaps.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'When email is provided, all providers run concurrently') and clarifying the rationale behind input combinations.

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 tool's purpose: 'Enrich a single lead by cascading through Apollo, Clearbit, and Hunter.' It uses a specific verb ('Enrich') and resource ('single lead'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'enrich_batch' and 'enrich_company'.

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 input requirements ('Provide at least one of: email, domain, or first_name + last_name + domain') and explains behavior under different scenarios (concurrent vs. sequential). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use the tool, the sibling names imply batch vs. single use.

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