enrich_work_email

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so the description is not burdened with repeating that. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the cost is 3 credits, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool. It does not mention async behavior when callback_url is supplied, but that is already described in the schema.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and the cost. Every word is informative and there is no unnecessary filler.

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 two-parameter tool with a single required input and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the input, the outcome, and the cost, while the schema covers the callback behavior and the annotation covers the read-only nature.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces that profile_url is a professional network profile URL but does not provide additional semantic meaning 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear output ('work email address') and input source ('professional network profile URL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like enrich_personal_email and enrich_reverse_email by specifying 'work' email.

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 clearly implies the primary use case: given a person's professional network profile URL, retrieve their work email address. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide tool selection.

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