enrich_person_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds non-annotation behavior: the requirement of exactly one URL, the return contents, and the credit cost. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful extra context for the agent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the key constraint, then output, then cost. No redundancy, every sentence earns its place. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description lists returned data categories ('experience, education, skills, and more') which sets expectations. Combined with 100% schema coverage for parameters and annotations for read-only/open-world, the description is sufficiently complete for an 8-parameter tool, though it omits potential pagination or error behavior—not critical here.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds the critical constraint of supplying exactly one of the three URL parameters, which is not in the schema. This is essential for correct invocation, raising the score above the baseline 3.

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 ('Get structured data') and resource ('person profile'), and specifies the output ('experience, education, skills, and more'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like enrich_person_lookup by emphasizing the URL-based input and richer data, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite: 'Provide exactly one of: profile_url, twitter_profile_url, or facebook_profile_url.' This tells the agent when to use it (when a profile URL is available). It also mentions the cost (1 credit), implying selective use. Does not explicitly list when not to use alternatives, but the input constraint is strong guidance.

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