enrich_employee_search

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds the cost (10 credits per request) which is behavioral context beyond annotations. It also mentions boolean search syntax, which is a behavioral detail. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'enriched' means in terms of data volume. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The cost mention is useful. No fluff. Slightly under-specified but efficient.

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 6 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the difference between 'skip' and 'enrich' for enrich_profiles, nor does it explain the page_size limits or resolve_numeric_id. The schema covers these, but the description could add context on when to use enrich vs skip. Also, no output schema means the description could hint at return format, but it doesn't. Overall, it's a minimum viable description.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds the boolean syntax example and cost, but doesn't add much beyond schema. The description mentions 'keyword' and 'company' which map to keyword_boolean and company_profile_url, but the schema already explains those. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 searches employees by keyword at a specific company, using boolean syntax for job titles. It distinguishes from siblings like enrich_employee_list (which likely lists without keyword search) and enrich_person_search (which may not be company-specific). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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: search employees at a company with keyword. It mentions cost (10 credits) which is a usage consideration. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. enrich_employee_list or enrich_person_search, nor does it mention any prerequisites like needing a company profile URL. The cost hint is useful but not a full guideline.

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