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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ("1 credit if found") and enumerates returned firmographic fields, but it omits authentication needs, not-found behavior, and whether the response is a flat object or structured payload.

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 efficient sentence with the core action and identifier formats front-loaded, followed by the returned fields and credit cost. Every phrase contributes useful 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?

For a one-parameter enrichment tool with no output schema, the description lists the firmographic fields returned and the cost condition. However, it does not fully specify the return structure or error/not-found behavior, which would matter without an output schema and annotations.

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%, so the identifier parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the acceptable identifier types but adds no syntax examples or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb and resource ("Get a company's firmographics") and names the accepted identifiers. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling person and school enrichment tools by focusing on company data.

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?

It implies when to use the tool by tying it to LinkedIn company URLs, slugs, or numeric IDs, but it does not explicitly say when to choose enrich_company over enrich_person, enrich_school, or search_people. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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