enrich_name_v1_enrich_name_post

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions gender prediction and the cost of 1 credit, which are useful. However, it does not describe the exact return format, language limitations, error handling, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure but leaves significant gaps such as the structure of the output and cultural/linguistic caveats.

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 exceedingly concise: two sentences that front-load the core functionality and then add the cost. Every word serves a purpose, and it avoids fluff. This is an excellent example of concise, structured communication.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it only says 'structured components' without specifying the exact fields beyond a few examples. It also does not mention the context parameter or any prerequisites. The description is adequate for a simple tool but leaves notable gaps in return format and edge-case handling.

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 tool description does not discuss any parameters, leaving all meaning to the schema. Schema coverage is reported as 50%, and while the full_name parameter has a detailed description, the context parameter lacks a top-level description. The tool description adds no value beyond what the schema provides, and it fails to compensate for the moderate 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 clearly states the tool deconstructs full name strings into structured components (First, Last, Title, etc.) and performs gender prediction, which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools by naming the output components and the gender prediction aspect, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like split_contact, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as split_contact or enrich_contact. It only explains what the tool does and its cost, with no mention of typical use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings. The schema description for the full_name parameter does contain usage hints, but that is not part of the tool description itself.

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