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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the paid nature of the call ('0.02 USDC via x402'), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it omits auth/wallet prerequisites, latency, failure modes, and whether enrichment is cached or live.

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 tightly packed sentence with the capability list front-loaded after the label. It is efficient, though the marketing tone ('GTM & research agents', '40+ tech stack signals') leans toward promotion over instruction.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does cover the output categories the agent will receive. Gaps remain around payment mechanics (wallet balance needed, what happens on failure) and no differentiation from the domain-recon sibling, leaving it only adequately complete.

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% for the single 'domain' parameter, including a format example (stripe.com, linear.app), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when schema documentation is complete.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource target (company domain enrichment) and enumerates concrete outputs: verified emails, social links, tech stack signals, pricing tiers, company summary. That is well beyond a restatement of the name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the overlapping sibling recon_domain_osint, so it does not reach a 5.

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 only usage cue is an audience tag ('for GTM & research agents'), with no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among siblings like recon_domain_osint or verify_email_deliverability. An agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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