enrich_company

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it names the live sources, states that no API key or resold database is used, explains canonical-domain deduplication, and says thin crawls are flagged rather than fabricated. It does not mention rate limits, latency, or failure behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is dense but organized, moving from inputs to sources to returned record fields. The long enumeration of record fields is justified because there is no output schema, though it makes the definition less scannable.

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 a complex enrichment tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key context an agent needs: accepted input forms, source model, returned fields, deduplication, and thin-crawl flagging. It is nearly complete, with only operational details like rate limits or error handling absent.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds that input accepts domains like "stripe.com" or bare names like "stripe", but this largely repeats what the schema already says, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: enrich companies from domains into a unified record, using live public sources rather than a resold database. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling company_hiring_signal, even though hiring data is one of its outputs.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus company_hiring_signal, check_email_domain, or list_capabilities. The use case is implied by the description, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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