enrich_lead

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'Consumes enrichment credits', which is a useful side-effect warning. However, it doesn't disclose whether enrichment is idempotent, what happens on credit exhaustion, whether existing enrichment fields get overwritten, or the return value/format. For a mutation-like operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys purpose and a cost side-effect. Every phrase earns its place. It could arguably be structured to front-load the credit cost, but the current form is compact and readable.

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?

With only 1 parameter (100% schema coverage), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a cost warning. It lists concrete data fields to be enriched, giving the agent a reasonable mental model. However, for an operation that likely modifies a lead record and consumes a finite resource, additional context about idempotency, overwrite behavior, or failure modes would improve completeness.

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% — the single leadId parameter is documented in the schema with 'Lead UUID from list_leads'. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond listing the enriched data fields, which is helpful context for what the operation produces. The baseline 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate, and the description provides marginal extra value by enumerating the enriched fields.

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+resource ('Enrich a lead') and clearly states what data is added (person and company data: seniority, department, LinkedIn, phone, company size, industry). It distinguishes from siblings like discover_companies and verify_emails by focusing on lead-level enrichment rather than company discovery or email verification, though it doesn't explicitly do so.

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 lists what data is enriched, giving implicit usage intent. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. siblings like discover_companies or verify_emails, no mention of prerequisites (lead existence from list_leads is implied by leadId param), and no when-not-to-use conditions. The credit consumption hint provides some context for cost-conscious selection.

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