bni_enrich_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that no external requests are made, meaning the tool only generates URLs and search suggestions rather than performing network calls. This is a critical behavioral trait for an agent to know, and it is stated upfront. However, it does not describe any other behaviors such as output format or rate limits, but the main non-obvious behavior is covered.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Generates LinkedIn search URLs and suggested web searches') and immediately follows with the key caveat ('no external requests'). Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It states the core function and the no-request caveat, but it does not describe the structure of the output (e.g., whether it returns a list of URLs, a formatted string, or a report) or how the optional parameters refine the search. An agent might need to guess at output formatting. However, the tool's simplicity (generating URLs) and the clear purpose reduce the need for extensive detail, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 input schema has only 25% description coverage (only 'name' is described). The description does not elaborate on how 'city', 'company', or 'profession' influence the generated URLs or search suggestions. It only vaguely ties them to 'find more information about a BNI member'. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage; the description should compensate by explaining each parameter's role, but it does not.

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 ('generates') and a specific resource ('LinkedIn search URLs and suggested web searches'), and it clarifies the scope ('to find more information about a BNI member'). It also notes a key distinction ('no external requests'), which differentiates it from tools that actually fetch data, like bni_member_detail or bni_search.

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 use for enrichment (finding more info) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bni_member_detail (which likely retrieves internal details) or bni_search (which might be a general search). No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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