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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with the 'enrich' action. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention caching, asynchronous processing, credit usage, or that it generates a signal. The schema's parameter descriptions contain such details, but the description itself fails to disclose any of these traits.

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 efficiently communicates the core action. It is not padded with fluff and is easy to parse. However, it is arguably too minimal, missing useful qualifiers like 'creates a signal' or 'for a contact', which would improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 schema provides rich parameter-level context (e.g., forceRefresh, webhookUrl, verificationMode), but the tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns or that it triggers asynchronous enrichment. Given the tool's complexity, a brief statement about the outcome or processing model is missing, making the description only partially 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, examples, defaults, and enums. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 'Enrich a contact with a custom question' clearly identifies the action (enrich) and the resource (contact), and the 'custom question' aspect distinguishes it from other contact enrichment tools like work-email enrichment. However, it does not explicitly mention that it creates a signal or how it relates to similar sibling tools like contacts-create_signal, leaving some 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as companies-enrich_custom or contacts-create_signal. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The only implicit context is the 'custom question' differentiator, which is not enough for clear usage decisions.

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