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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't explain potential side effects (e.g., credit usage, async processing, webhook delivery) that go beyond the structured 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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and results, making for an appropriately concise and easily scanned tool definition.

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 description is minimal and lacks important context. It doesn't explain the nature of funding status data, whether the operation is synchronous or async, what the response contains, or that webhookUrl and forceRefresh are available. Given the tool has a nested request body and no output schema, more descriptive context is needed.

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 all parameters (domain, webhookUrl, forceRefresh) are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the general 'company' context.

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 and resource: 'Enrich a company with funding status.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like enrich_firmographics or enrich_mna by specifically mentioning funding status. However, it is somewhat terse and could elaborate on what 'funding status' entails.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or differences from other enrichment tools in the sibling list.

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