apollo_get_organization_top_people

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals the HTTP method and endpoint, and notes the endpoint is undocumented. However, it omits important behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or the definition of 'top people.'

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 very concise: two sentences covering purpose, use case, endpoint, and a caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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 a single required parameter with full schema description and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is mostly complete. It could hint at the return shape (e.g., 'returns a list of people'), but the essential information for invocation is present.

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% with the parameter description 'Apollo organization ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents the parameter.

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 function: 'Get the top contacts at a given organization' and provides a use case ('good for ICP mapping'). It identifies the specific resource (organization) and resource type (top contacts). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apollo_search_contacts or apollo_get_person, which could be ambiguous.

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 implies usage for ICP mapping, offering some context. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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