combined_enrichment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations and schema by naming the external source ('Hunter v2') and the optional output shape ('Clearbit-compatible format'). It does not mention rate limits or exact response shape, but with annotations carrying the heavy safety burden, this is sufficient.

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 dense sentence that packs the action, target, input, source, and optional format with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately 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 two-parameter tool with read-only and open-world annotations, the description covers the essential call semantics: email input, combined enrichment scope, the Hunter v2 provider, and the optional Clearbit-compatible format. The lack of an output schema means the exact return shape is not described, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 schema already documents email with format constraints and clearbit_format with a description, covering 50% of parameter semantics. The description reinforces that the email drives the combined person+company enrichment and that output can be Clearbit-shaped, but it does not add new syntax or constraints beyond what the schema gives. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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'), the resource ('both a person and their company'), and the input ('from one email'), so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like email_enrichment and company_enrichment, which cover only one side.

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 phrase 'both a person and their company' clearly implies the use case: choose this tool when both person and company enrichment are needed from a single email. It does not explicitly state when to prefer the sibling tools, so it stops short of a full when/when-not rule, but the context is not ambiguous.

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