Enrich Company Firmographics

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the source of data (schema.org JSON-LD and HTML meta tags), the output format (flat JSON row with source_signals and data_completeness score), and the existence of a cache (skipCache parameter). No contradictions.

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 concise: two sentences covering purpose, technical detail, and constraints. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and structured logically.

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 is complete given the context. It explains the output format despite no output schema, mentions caching behavior, and covers prerequisites. No gaps are evident.

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% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 domain into structured firmographics, listing specific output fields (employee band, industry, HQ, etc.). It uses a specific verb 'enrich' and resource 'company domain', and distinguishes itself from any potential siblings by being specific.

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 contextual usage guidance: it is read-only, requires an APIFY_TOKEN, and consumes Apify credits. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives (none provided), the constraints are clear enough for an AI agent to decide.

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