enrich_personal_contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by saying 'Get.' It adds cost ('1 credit per contact number') and input precondition, which are valuable beyond annotations. It does not disclose pagination behavior, but page_size is in the schema, so this is sufficient.

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 input requirement and cost. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

For a simple read-only enrichment tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input constraints, and cost. It doesn't explain return values or errors, but given the schema and annotations, the agent has enough to invoke correctly. Lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the name and purpose are clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that at least one of the three profile URL parameters must be provided, and that the cost is per contact number. This relationship is not evident from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('personal contact phone numbers of a person'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like enrich_personal_email and enrich_reverse_phone. The input requirement is also stated.

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 explicitly states the required condition: 'Provide at least one of: profile_url, twitter_profile_url, or facebook_profile_url.' It also mentions cost. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so a 4 rather than 5.

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