Kooperativa: enrich person

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 404 response for unindexed profiles and states that there is no on-demand live scrape, which sets accurate failure expectations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the key behavioral traits for a lookup operation are present.

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 exactly two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and data scope, then states the identifier constraint, then the failure behavior. It avoids repeating schema descriptions.

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, but the description lists the expected profile content categories and the 404 failure mode, which gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly. It does not describe the exact response envelope, but for a single-profile lookup this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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%, with descriptions for each parameter already provided. The description adds the meaningful mutual-exclusion rule 'exactly one of linkedin_url, username, or id', which the schema does not encode. This goes beyond what the structured schema alone communicates.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('person's full professional profile from the Kooperativa data lake'), and enumerates content categories (work history, education, skills, etc.). It clearly distinguishes this from search or check tools by emphasizing a complete profile and by constraining input to exactly one identifier.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a full indexed profile is needed) and gives the 'exactly one of' identifier instruction, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like check_person, search_people, or bulk_enrich_people. The live-scrape caveat is a limitation, not a routing rule for choosing a different tool.

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