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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the cost behavior ('Spends one scrape credit per call') and implies external network access through enrichment. It does not contradict annotations. The added cost disclosure is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences: purpose, input format, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action, then the essential usage pattern, then the operational constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at what is returned. It says 'enrich it with public profile and company data', which implies the return contains those fields, but the exact structure is not specified. For a simple enrichment tool with optional parameters, this is reasonably complete, though a note about failure behavior (e.g., not found) would improve it.

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 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by clarifying how parameters combine: 'Give a LinkedIn or company URL, or a name plus company' indicates that url can be used alone, or full_name plus company together. This combination logic is not explicit in the schema and helps the agent understand valid input patterns.

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 clear verb ('Look up and enrich') with a specific resource (person or company) and lists the enrichment fields (role, company details, social profiles). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_b2b_leads (which finds leads) and find_email (which finds email addresses). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 specifies the required input formats ('Give a LinkedIn or company URL, or a name plus company') and mentions the cost ('Spends one scrape credit per call'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a lead already exists and needs enrichment versus when searching for new leads. The input guidance is clear but alternative conditions are not addressed.

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