Enrich Person with Clay

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context about how the tool resolves lookups (e.g., email is the best lookup key, company_domain for disambiguation) and what it returns. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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-organized with clear sections (main purpose, required-input guidance, args, returns, examples). Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting makes it easy for an agent to parse key information quickly.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: input requirements, output fields, and examples. There is no output schema, so the 'Returns' list is helpful. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing edge cases like no-match or multiple matches, but given the annotations and simplicity, it is largely sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clearly grouping parameters, explaining the fuzzy-matching role of first/last name, and explicitly calling email the 'best lookup key'. Examples further illustrate parameter mapping, providing more than the schema alone.

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's purpose: to enrich a person's profile using Clay's data network, listing the specific fields returned (job title, company, email, etc.). It distinguishes from the sibling tool clay_enrich_company by focusing on a person rather than a company.

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 provides concrete usage guidance: it explicitly states that at least one of email, linkedin_url, or first_name+last_name+company_domain must be provided, and gives examples of natural-language inputs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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