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

Annotations already declare readOnly/safe, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the credit cost (free), the credits-charged field, the full status lifecycle (pending | settled | failed | expired), and the meaning of a settled-but-empty result. This is exactly the added behavioral value the dimension rewards.

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?

Front-loaded with verb and resource, and each sentence carries operational value (polling guidance, no-email interpretation, cost). It is dense and somewhat long, but no sentence is filler.

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 itself documents the return shape (status, credits charged, email when settled, result) plus lifecycle and cost, so an agent knows both how to call it and what to expect. Nothing essential is missing for a two-parameter read tool.

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 0% and both params are required, so the description must compensate. It explains job_id well as the `job` handle from a still_enriching row, but provider is left entirely unqualified with no accepted values or format, so half the parameter semantics remain undocumented.

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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus resource (async enrichment job) and the identifying parameters (provider, job id). It further anchors the resource as 'the `job` handle on a `still_enriching` row', which distinguishes it from the job-creating sibling hyreflow_enrich_run without ambiguity.

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 strong operational context: a pending status means check again later, and a still_enriching row is not a miss. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool or the exact polling cadence, but the when-to-use situation is clear.

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