Company enrichment

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds the key side effect: it costs credits from the account wallet. It also discloses the output shape, which supplements the minimal annotations. It does not mention failure or invalid-input behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple enrichment tool.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core transformation is stated first, and the cost warning is added as a relevant tail.

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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input trigger, output fields, and cost. It is slightly thin on parameter constraints and error behavior, so it is not fully complete, but it is sufficient for initial selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the parameters correspond to a 'domain or work email,' but it does not explain expected formats, whether one parameter is required, or what happens if both are supplied.

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 transformation: a domain or work email becomes a structured company profile with named output fields (name, description, industry, HQ, size, links). It is specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like parserail_describe or parserail_research.

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 trigger condition is clear: use it when you have a domain or work email and want company firmographic data. It does not enumerate exclusions or explicitly name when to prefer an alternative, but the input-to-output mapping provides enough routing context.

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