b2b_company_techstack_contacts_enricher

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only partially does so: it enumerates what data comes back (useful given there is no output schema) but says nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, expected latency, rate limits, credit cost, or what happens when a domain cannot be enriched. The absence of any operational caveat for a multi-source network enrichment call is a real gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every enumerated item is substantive output information. It is dense and slightly list-heavy (the '38+' figure is marketing-adjacent), but nothing could be cut without losing signal.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned data categories, which is the main thing an agent needs. It still omits response shape (per-domain vs. batched records), failure behavior for unenrichable domains, and any cost/latency expectation, leaving it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all four parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect hints — the '38+ technology stack fingerprints' and 'MX/SPF/DMARC' phrases loosely signal what detectTechStack and extractContacts toggle — without adding format, batching, or cost semantics 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Enrich') on a specific resource ('B2B company domains') and enumerates the exact data classes produced (emails, phones, social profiles, tech stack, MX/SPF/DMARC, RDAP). The purpose is unmistakable and no sibling tool in the list covers B2B domain enrichment, so confusion is unlikely even though no sibling is named.

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 is a pure capability list with no when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (e.g., domains must be company root domains, not URLs), and no guidance on when to disable detectTechStack or extractContacts to save time/cost. An agent must infer the call context entirely from the name.

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