enrich_contact_v1_enrich_contact_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the exact operations (E.164 standardization, MX/disposable checks) and the credit cost, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call. However, it does not describe what happens on invalid input (error vs. partial result) or the response format, which would improve transparency further.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a cost note. It leads with the core purpose and then lists specifics. There is zero fluff, and the negative constraint is embedded efficiently. It is a model of brevity without sacrificing necessary information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, one with nested object) and 75% schema coverage, the description covers the main domain and provides a crucial usage constraint. It does not mention output specifics, but that is often left out when no output schema exists. The cost and constraints make it callable correctly; a mention of return format would push it to 5.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides (email, phone, context, country_code all have detailed descriptions). Since the schema covers the parameters well, the description adding nothing extra is acceptable and does not warrant a lower score.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Verifies and formats contact details.' It then explicitly names what it does with phone numbers (standardizes to E.164) and email (deep validation with syntax, MX, disposable check). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like enrich_date or enrich_amount, which target different entity types.

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 gives explicit positive guidance: 'USE THIS TOOL to ensure phone numbers are dialable.' It also provides a negative constraint: 'DO NOT use this tool if you only have a country code without a local number.' However, it does not mention alternative tools for contact cleaning (e.g., split_contact or dedupe_items), so there is no explicit routing away from siblings, but the context is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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