deep_enrich_lead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output artifacts (verified emails, social links, founders, a <300-token Markdown summary) and the token-optimized engine, which is useful behavioral context. But it omits cost/latency implications, rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens when the crawl fails.

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?

Two tightly written sentences that front-load the action and then the outputs. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 an 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential return content (emails, socials, decision makers, markdown summary) so an agent knows what comes back. Missing only failure/edge-case behavior and any alternative-tool routing.

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% with 8 documented parameters and three enums, so the schema already explains every field. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is there, so 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 (enrich) and resource (business lead) plus the mechanism (crawling the official website) and enumerates the concrete outputs. It is clearly distinct from generic extract_contacts/crawl_website siblings, though it never names an alternative tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over crawl_website, extract_contacts, or batch_extract_web_content. The only selection hint is the 'deeply' qualifier and the mode enum, which lives in the schema, not the description.

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