enrich_company_websites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does describe what the enrichment returns, but says nothing about whether the operation is a live crawl/network call, rate limits, cost, error behavior, or whether maxPagesPerSite bounds the crawl.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and then lists outputs. The parenthetical example brands (Stripe, HubSpot, Salesforce, Next.js) are slightly verbose but do concretize what "tech stack signals" means.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering the return payload, but leaves real gaps: no read/write profile, no rate-limit or cost note, and no explanation of the undocumented maxPagesPerSite parameter or crawling behavior.

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 50%: websiteUrls is documented, but maxPagesPerSite has no description anywhere. The phrase "domains/URLs" loosely reinforces the accepted input format, but the description does not compensate for the entirely unexplained crawl-depth parameter.

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 ("Enrich") and resource ("company domains/URLs") and enumerates the concrete outputs (tech stack signals, role emails, social links), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It stops short of naming how it differs from overlapping siblings like find_and_verify_corporate_emails, which also touches emails.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a sibling tool (e.g., email finding or domain security auditing) would be the better pick. Usage is only implied by the output list.

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