people_enrichment

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

No annotations exist, and the description provides no behavioral information. It does not disclose whether the tool consumes credits, requires authentication, has rate limits, or produces side effects. The agent gains no insight beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and a link. It front-loads the action efficiently and wastes no words. However, it is so brief that it omits critical context.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and any parameter guidance in the description, the tool is severely under-described. The single sentence 'enrich data for 1 person' is insufficient for an agent to understand how to use it effectively, leaving major gaps in contextual understanding.

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 parameter information; it does not mention any of the input fields. Although the schema itself has detailed parameter descriptions, the description fails to add value beyond that. With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 states the tool enriches data for a single person, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like people_search (searching multiple) and organization_enrichment. However, it does not specify what kind of data is enriched (e.g., contact info, employment), making it slightly vague.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left without context for appropriate invocation.

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