topai_company_enrichment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, and the description's 'Stateless, read-only, idempotent lookup' mostly restates them. The genuinely additive part is the enumeration of returned metadata, but there is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on unknown/missing domains — a real gap for an open-world external lookup.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by routing guidance, with no filler or marketing language. The final 'Stateless, read-only, idempotent lookup' sentence largely duplicates the annotations, which is the only wasted sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned field categories, and routing is fully covered. Minor gaps remain around return shape/coverage (e.g., what happens when enrichment finds nothing) for an open-world lookup, but it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema, including an example ('linear.app'). The description's example domain duplicates the schema example and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (enriches) and resource (a single corporate domain name), then enumerates the returned firmographic fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two sibling tools, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('you have a known company domain') and two when-not cases with named alternatives (`topai_b2b_data_leads` for discovery, `topai_techstack_fingerprint` for exhaustive fingerprinting). Routing is unambiguous.

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