Enrich Person

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about cost/credit consumption for enrichment, whether reveal_phone_number or reveal_personal_emails incur extra charges, rate limits, or result-empty behavior. For a paid enrichment endpoint this is a substantial gap.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and matching modes front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for a six-parameter tool.

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?

A six-parameter, zero-required-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with no output schema and no annotations needs more: which identifier combinations are valid, what happens on a miss, and whether phone/personal-email reveals are billable are all absent.

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 33%, but the description does add meaning by grouping the three matching keys (email, linkedin_url, name+company) as alternative identifiers. It omits that at least one identifier must be supplied despite zero required parameters, and says nothing about the two reveal_* flags beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb (enrich) and resource (a person) and names the accepted matching keys. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like apollo_bulk_enrich_people and apollo_enrich_company, though it never names them. Clear enough for an agent to identify the tool.

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 lists valid input keys but gives no when-to-use guidance: no distinction from apollo_search_people (lookup vs enrichment), no mention that this is the single-record counterpart to the bulk variant. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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