enrich_reverse_phone

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds a behaviorally relevant cost ('3 credits') but does not describe the return payload or failure modes; this is acceptable for a simple read-only lookup with strong annotation coverage.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence conveys purpose, input, and cost with no filler. Every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit return structure, but 'professional network profile' gives a reasonable expectation of the output, and the tool is simple enough that this does not feel 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 fully documents phone_number with E.164 formatting and an example, so the description does not need to add much. The description only restates 'phone number' in natural language, adding no meaningful semantic information beyond the schema.

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'), the target resource ('a person's professional network profile'), and the input ('phone number'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enrich_reverse_email and enrich_person_lookup.

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 phrase 'by their phone number' clearly signals when to use this tool: when a phone number is the available identifier. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the trigger condition is clear.

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