enrich_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions credit usage, which is a key behavioral aspect. However, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if both inputs are missing. This is a moderate disclosure.

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 states the purpose first, then the input requirements. Every word is necessary, no fluff. It is as concise as possible while conveying essential 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 simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, input prerequisites, credit usage, and the nature of output ('full professional details'). It could be more complete by noting that at least one param is effectively required, but overall is sufficient for an agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that the parameters are alternatives ('provide linkedin_url or people_search_id') and that 'people_search_id' comes from a previous search. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 action ('enrich'), the resource ('person'), and the details provided ('full professional details including work history and education'). It also mentions credit usage and specifies the required inputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lookup_person' which likely provide basic info.

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 tells the agent to provide a 'linkedin_url or people_search_id from a previous search', hinting at the prerequisite of a prior search. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup_person' or 'search_people', missing a clear 'when to use' statement.

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