company_enrichment

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the underlying provider and the Clearbit-compatible format option, but it does not describe rate limits, returned fields, or failure behavior. This is acceptable but not exceptional given the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the two most decision-relevant modifiers: the provider and the optional output format. Every part earns its place.

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 simple, read-only, two-parameter tool, the description covers the required input, the optional flag, and the data source. There is no output schema, and the description does not enumerate return fields, but 'enrich a company' reasonably implies the returned payload. The annotation already covers safety, so the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 only 50%, with the domain parameter undocumented in the schema. The description helps by implying that domain is the company's domain and that clearbit_format controls the output shape, but it does not specify domain syntax or what the native Hunter format looks like. It partially compensates for the schema gap without fully closing it.

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 starts with a specific verb, 'Enrich', and clearly identifies the resource as 'a company' and the input source as 'its domain'. It also names the provider (Hunter v2) and an optional output format (Clearbit-compatible), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like email_enrichment or combined_enrichment.

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 'from its domain' gives a clear triggering condition: use this tool when you have a company domain and need company enrichment data. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to an alternative such as combined_enrichment, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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