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

Discloses the composite POST-then-poll behavior, the terminal statuses checked, and timeout behavior. Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description adds essential behavioral context about waiting and polling. It doesn't mention what happens on timeout or what the return value is, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

A single dense sentence conveys the entire operation and parameter relationship. Every clause adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core HTTP sequence.

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 11 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema. The description explains the workflow but omits what the tool returns after waiting (e.g., the final enrichment result or just the status). It also doesn't clarify timeout return behavior. Given the complexity, this is a gap, but the operation itself is clearly described.

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% with each parameter documented. The description adds useful context that most parameters are inherited from start_company_enrichment and that poll_interval_seconds and timeout_seconds are the new additions, but it doesn't add per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: POST to /v1/company/enrich, then poll the status endpoint until 'completed' or 'failed' or timeout. It names the specific resources and actions, and explicitly contrasts with start_company_enrichment by noting it adds polling parameters.

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 implies this is the blocking/waiting variant by describing the polling flow and referencing start_company_enrichment as the base. It provides clear context for when to use it, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., 'use start_company_enrichment instead if you want to poll manually').

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