Enrich Company with Clay

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by listing the return fields, stating domain is the best lookup key, and providing examples of expected input phrasing. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it omits edge case behavior (e.g., when neither param is provided).

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, args list, returns list, and examples. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, but the returns list is repeated twice (once in the opening sentence and again in the Returns section), creating minor redundancy. Still, each part is useful and it remains concise overall.

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 3-parameter tool, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, expected inputs, output fields, and examples. It clarifies that at least one of domain/company_name should be provided, addressing a schema ambiguity. It leaves out error handling but that is not critical for this low-complexity enrichment 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'domain (string, optional): Company website domain (best lookup key)' vs. schema's 'primary lookup key'). It adds examples of natural language inputs but no new semantic detail for parameter values or combinations.

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 tool enriches a company profile using Clay's data network and lists specific output fields (industry, employee count, revenue, tech stack, funding, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clay_enrich_person (people enrichment) and zoominfo_search_company (search-oriented) through a clear verb+resource+method combination.

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 gives clear input guidance ('Provide domain (preferred) or company_name') and context that this is for enrichment via Clay. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is obvious enough that an agent could infer when to use it. This qualifies as clear context without explicit alternatives.

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