apollo_bulk_enrich_organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It mentions 'using Apollo match' but does not disclose whether this operation is destructive, whether it requires special authentication, or if there are rate limits. The input schema note that only 'domain' is used adds a small behavioral hint, but overall transparency is low.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise: one sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose and input format without any fluff.

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 that an output schema exists (mentioned in context), the description need not detail return values. However, for a bulk operation, it is missing important contextual details like maximum batch size, error handling behavior, or performance considerations. The tool's complexity is moderate, and siblings exist for similar tasks, so the description is minimally 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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds one useful piece of information beyond the schema: the hint about providing domain or name. However, it does not elaborate on the format or constraints of the input beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Bulk enrich multiple organizations using Apollo match.' It specifies the input as an array of organizations with domain or name, which distinguishes it from single-organization enrich tools like apollo_enrich_company and other bulk tools like apollo_bulk_enrich_people.

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 a basic instruction ('Provide an array of organizations with domain or name') but does not explicitly explain when to use this bulk tool versus the single-organization enrich tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives among siblings.

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