company_enrich

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: per-call cost ($0.01 USDC), p99 latency (20000ms), a billing exception (not charged when no imprint or company data found), live VIES and LEI/Global LEI Index checks with exact-name-match caveat, and a deliberate data omission (names of natural persons). This is unusually rich operational disclosure.

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 dense paragraph with essentially every clause carrying information, and purpose is front-loaded. It would be easier to scan with light segmentation (returns, billing, constraints), but there is little true filler to cut.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the returned fields (legal name and form, address, phone, email, HRB/HRA with court, FN, UID, VAT ID, LEI status), so an agent knows what comes back. Cost, timing, scope, and data-handling caveats are all covered.

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 the single parameter already documents 'Company domain or website URL, e.g. zalando.de'. The description's 'Send domain, e.g. zalando.de' reinforces but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (enrichment) and resource (company) with an explicit geographic scope (DE, AT, CH) and enumerates the exact returned fields. It reads the imprint/Impressum, which is a distinctive mechanism that separates it from generic siblings like company_lookup or company_brief.

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?

Names concrete use cases (lead enrichment, CRM cleanup, supplier onboarding, KYB) and the geographic boundary acts as an implicit when-to-use constraint. However, it never routes the agent to siblings such as company_lookup (non-DACH), vat_validate, or kyb_check, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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