Read enrichment

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the shape of what comes back — prompt, input_columns, output column fields, tools, budget_credits_per_row, version — and by explaining the `legacy`/`successor` key, which is real behavioral context not present in any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then a compact field enumeration. The second sentence is dense but every listed field earns its place because there is no output schema to carry the return shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return fields and does so, plus it explains the legacy-id/successor edge case that an agent would otherwise misread. Nothing essential to calling this one-parameter read correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage ('The enrichment id (enr_...)'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description reinforces that the id identifies exactly one enrichment but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond that; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('read enrichment') and narrows scope to 'One enrichment by id', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_enrichments. It never names the sibling outright, but the singular-by-id framing is enough for an agent to tell them apart.

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?

Usage is only implied: use this to fetch a single enrichment when you already have an id. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over list_enrichments, get_extraction, or get_run, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are mentioned.

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