email_enrichment

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by naming Hunter v2 as the backend and noting the Clearbit-compatible output option, but it does not describe response shape, failure modes, or what happens when neither input is provided.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The core action, inputs, provider, and optional output format are all front-loaded, and every clause 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?

The description is minimally adequate for a simple enrichment lookup, but important context is missing: there are no required parameters in the schema, yet the description implies at least one of email or linkedin_handle is needed. There is also no output schema, and the description does not indicate the shape of the returned enrichment data or how errors should be handled.

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 33%, but the description compensates by explaining the roles of email and linkedin_handle ('from an email address or LinkedIn handle') and clearbit_format ('optionally in Clearbit-compatible format'). It does not specify the expected LinkedIn handle format or whether email and linkedin_handle are mutually exclusive, but it provides more meaning than the raw schema alone.

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 names a specific verb ('Enrich'), a specific resource ('a person'), and the input sources ('email address or LinkedIn handle'), while also identifying the provider ('Hunter v2'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like email_finder, email_verifier, and company_enrichment based on the operation and resource.

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 description implies the tool should be used when you have an email address or LinkedIn handle and need person enrichment, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings such as combined_enrichment or company_enrichment. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer routing from the wording alone.

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