enrich_company_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that it is live enrichment, which pages are crawled in parallel, and what categories of data are extracted. It still omits operational traits such as rate limits, caching, authentication needs, and response shape.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and the remaining text is a dense but relevant enumeration of extracted data. It is somewhat run-on and includes a vague phrase like 'at the edge,' but most wording 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies a useful conceptual inventory of return data and crawl behavior. It is still missing response structure, limitations, and routing guidance, but it is substantially complete for basic 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 coverage is 100% and the single domain parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description does not add syntax, normalization, or validation details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific enrichment operation and enumerates the extracted resources: emails, phone numbers, social profiles, tech stack, compliance certifications, and intent signals. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as batch_enrich_domains or inspect_domain_infra, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-not-to-use exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The presence of batch_enrich_domains makes the absence of routing guidance especially notable for multi-domain use cases.

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