enrich_company_id_lookup

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds the cost (0 credits) and specifies the output (professional network URL), which goes beyond the annotations. No side effects are described, but the readOnlyHint covers that.

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 one concise sentence, directly conveying the purpose, input, and output. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple nature of a single-ID lookup and the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns (URL). Mention of cost adds context. It does not discuss error cases, but that is not required for such a straightforward operation.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'id' with a clear description and example. The tool description reiterates the same information without adding new semantic nuance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (look up) and target (company by internal numeric ID), and specifies the output (professional network URL). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like enrich_company_search or enrich_company_profile.

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 when you have a company ID, and mentions cost (0 credits), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to prefer this over other tools. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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