Enrich Person

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'enrich' without explaining side effects, data sources, credit costs, idempotency, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence. It is concise but omits critical details. It earns a 4 for brevity without verbosity, but the lack of structure (e.g., separate sections for usage and behavior) limits its utility.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. An agent lacks information on input requirements, return format, and important behavioral constraints. The description leaves too many gaps for reliable tool use.

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% (2 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter details beyond listing identification keys. It does not clarify input combinations (e.g., name+company must be used together) or the meaning of boolean options.

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 the action (enrich) and resource (a person), and lists the identification keys (email, linkedin_url, name+company). It implies a single-person focus, distinguishing it from bulk counterparts. However, it doesn't specify what 'enrich' adds, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like apollo_search_people, apollo_bulk_enrich_people, or apollo_enrich_company. The description fails to indicate prerequisites or conditions for using different identification methods.

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