organization_enrichment

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

No annotations exist, so the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only status, prerequisites, or return structure. It merely states 'enrich data' without mentioning if it modifies data or what the response contains.

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 short (one sentence plus link), which is concise but sacrifices completeness. The link to docs is helpful but not part of the inline description. It front-loads the purpose but lacks depth.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what enrichment results look like or how to handle the response. Sibling tools exist, but no comparative context is provided.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The 'query' parameter is not explained, though its nested 'domain' field has a schema description. With 0% schema description coverage on the main parameter, the description should compensate but fails.

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 data for one company, using a specific verb (enrich) and resource (company). It distinguishes from siblings like organization_search (searching) and organization_job_postings (job listings). However, it could be more specific about what 'enrich' entails (e.g., company details, funding).

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like organization_search or people_enrichment. The description only states what it does without context for selection.

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