enrich_person_lookup

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds the cost of 2 credits and mentions the return of a professional network profile. It does not describe edge cases or side effects, but given the read-only annotation, the description provides adequate transparency for a basic lookup.

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 a single, focused sentence plus a cost note. It is concise, with no redundant or verbose language.

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?

While the description and schema cover the mechanics of the call, the description does not explain how this tool differs from the numerous sibling enrichment tools (e.g., enrich_person_search) or when it would be the appropriate choice. It also omits any mention of output format or potential limitations, leaving the context incomplete.

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 descriptions for each parameter are clear and cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description reiterates the key criteria (first name and company domain) but adds no extra depth about how optional parameters like enrich_profile or similarity_checks affect the lookup.

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's function: looking up a person by first name and company domain to find a professional network profile. It is specific about the required inputs, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like enrich_person_search, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling enrichment tools. It does not mention scenarios where this specific lookup is preferred, nor does it explain any prerequisites or alternatives.

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