apollo_bulk_enrich_people

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., credit consumption), error handling for partial failures, or any behavioral traits like idempotency. The description lacks depth for safe invocation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word serves a clear function.

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 presence of an output schema, return value details are not needed. However, for a bulk operation, the description lacks guidance on partial failures, rate limits, or processing behavior. It is minimally adequate for simple use but incomplete for robust usage.

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 covers all parameters inline (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying valid identifier combinations (email, linkedin_url, name+domain, name+organization_name) beyond the schema's individual property listings, clarifying required patterns for successful enrichment.

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 action ('Bulk enrich multiple people using Apollo match') and explicitly lists the acceptable identifier combinations (email, linkedin_url, name+domain, name+organization_name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like `apollo_enrich_person` (single) and `apollo_bulk_enrich_organizations` (organizations) by specifying 'people' and 'bulk'.

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 input requirements ('provide an array of people with...') but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., single vs bulk enrichment, or when to use `apollo_bulk_enrich_organizations`). No explicit when-not or context for selection is given.

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