run_phone_enrichment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'when available' hints that results may be partial or empty, which is useful, but it says nothing about what profile fields are returned, credential/rate-limit requirements, or cost.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 enrichment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits input format, output shape, and selection versus the US sibling. An agent cannot invoke it confidently.

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 0% for the single phone parameter, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. 'A known phone number' implies the number must exist, but no format (e.g. E.164, country code) is given.

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 (enriches) and resource (phone number) with what it produces (profile data). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling run_phone_enrichment_us, leaving the agent unable to tell which phone-enrichment tool to pick.

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 the alternative run_phone_enrichment_us. The agent is left to infer when this general tool applies versus the US-specific sibling or the email-enrichment tools.

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