enrich_prospects_contacts_information

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

With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or destructive, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects like modifying existing data.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action. It lists return fields in a bullet-like format. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping return types) but remains effective in its brevity.

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 the simple input and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return data. However, it lacks details on error handling, invalid IDs, or the enrichment process itself, leaving some gaps for a basic tool.

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 single parameter 'prospect_ids' is well-documented in the schema (list of IDs from match_prospects, max 50). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 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 explicitly states it enriches prospect contact information and lists the specific data returned (emails, email type, phone numbers). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like enrich_prospects_profiles or enrich_prospects_linkedin_posts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other enrich tools, no prerequisites mentioned, and no context on when not to use it. The parameter description hints at using it after match_prospects, but the tool description itself lacks this guidance.

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