enrich_lead

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the cascade order: Apollo first for email discovery, then concurrent Clearbit+Hunter. It explains concurrency when email is provided. This is good behavioral detail. Missing: rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is safe (read-only). Still, adequately transparent.

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?

Five sentences, well-structured, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds specific information: input requirements, concurrency, cascade logic. No unnecessary words. Efficient and to the point.

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 tool complexity (multiple providers, cascade) and that an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It covers input constraints and provider behavior. Could mention what the enrichment response looks like (e.g., unified field) but output schema likely covers that. Adequate.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains input combinations (email vs. domain+name) and how the cascade changes. This helps the agent understand which parameters to provide together and why. Truly adds value.

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 it enriches a single lead using Apollo, Clearbit, and Hunter. It distinguishes from siblings: find_email (likely just email lookup), enrich_company (company-level), enrich_batch (batch). The verb 'enrich' combined with resource 'lead' and provider names is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on required inputs: 'Provide at least one of: email, domain, or first_name + last_name + domain.' It explains provider behavior based on input type. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the cascade logic helps. Clear usage context but no exclusions.

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