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

Annotations provide openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as asynchronous execution, side effects, credit consumption, or caching behavior. The description does not contradict 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient but somewhat under-specified for a tool with this complexity.

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?

Despite having a nested schema and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, asynchronous behavior, or what M&A activity data actually includes. The description is too sparse to be considered complete for this 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?

The input schema fully documents all parameters (domain, webhookUrl, forceRefresh) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it only provides the M&A 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 clearly identifies the verb 'enrich', the resource 'company', and the scope 'M&A activity'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling enrich tools by the activity type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as companies-enrich_funding or signals-mna. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases.

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