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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds genuinely new operational facts: one quota request per call, priced per account rather than per person, no per-contact repetition, ~20s latency for enrich, and that employee names are never exposed. It stops short of describing result size/pagination or failure modes, so it is strong but not exhaustive beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and payoff, and the workflow guidance comes last where it belongs. It is dense and runs long with some repetition of what the schema already states and a couple of sprawling run-on sentences, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: it enumerates the returned blocks, explains what relationships and enrich add, and states the privacy boundary on employee names. An agent has enough to call it correctly and know what comes back.

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% and the per-parameter descriptions restate nearly the same content as the main description (relationships expansion, enrich ~20s, company domain/name). The description adds the account-level pricing constraint around the call, but little parameter meaning that the schema does not already supply, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Profile a company') and then enumerates the concrete outputs: firmographics + revenue, team makeup, hiring velocity, activity signals, geo footprint, and a growth/reorg/stealth/stable verdict. It explicitly positions itself as account-level work before individual-level work, separating it from analyze_contact.

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 explicit when-to-use routing: 'Call once per account for research and timing; then analyze_contact for the individuals.' It also scopes the optional flags with exclusions ('ask for it when you need warm entry paths, not for plain account research' and 'hot accounts only' for enrich).

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