run_email_enrichment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It notes data is returned 'when available', but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires special authentication, can fail for invalid/disposable emails, or what side effects (if any) occur. This opacity could lead an agent to misuse the tool or misinterpret errors.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and key data fields without excess words. No fluff or repetition—every element earns its place.

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 covers the tool's core function and expected outputs, but with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return format (e.g., JSON structure), error behavior for invalid emails, and any rate-limit or permission notes. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), this is sufficient but not rich; there is clear room for additional context.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the sole parameter 'email' with a clear description. The tool description adds only the qualifier 'known' and the list of profile data, which does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 specifies a clear action ('Enriches') and resource ('known email address'), and enumerates the exact data returned (name, phone, company, position, LinkedIn/X profiles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_email_validation (validates) and run_email_finder (finds), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool: when you already have a known email and want associated profile data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., run_email_finder when you lack an email, run_phone_enrichment for phone-only data) or state when not to use it. The context is clear but under-specified.

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