apollo_enrich_company

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what 'enrich' entails (e.g., whether it mutates data, requires authentication, or has rate limits). The phrase 'using Apollo match' adds minimal clarity.

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 a single 12-word sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and is perfectly concise.

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 simplicity (2 optional params, output schema present), the description is partially complete. It conveys the core action but lacks usage context, behavioral details, and differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies at least one of 'name' or 'domain' should be provided, but does not specify format, priority, or behavior when both are given. This provides basic but insufficient detail.

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 enriches a company/organization by domain or name using Apollo match. The verb 'enrich' and resource 'company/organization' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like apollo_enrich_person (different resource) and apollo_search_companies (search vs enrich).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apollo_search_companies or apollo_get_complete_organization_info. It does not specify context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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