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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that actions_details must be resolved before any real query, and that available_actions is already bundled into the accounts response. It does not say what happens if Step 2 is skipped, whether results are cached or scoped to a workspace, or any error behavior.

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 the purpose, then clean numbered steps with the required step called out in caps. Minor waste in the redundant parenthetical '(already included in accounts response)' and the repeated placeholder explanation, but structure is strong.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description gives enough sequencing detail to drive a correct first call. The gap is the undocumented 'platform' input and the input-side role of 'workspace_id' for a tool with four parameters.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, yet it explains only 'request' and 'actions' (including the ['xxxxxx'] placeholder convention). The 'platform' parameter is never mentioned and 'workspace_id' appears only as an output of the accounts call, leaving its input role undocumented.

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 it is a planning/setup helper for Company Enrichment queries and enumerates its three request modes ('accounts', 'actions_details', 'available_actions') with what each returns. The verb is more 'plan/orient' than a single action, but the mode breakdown makes the tool's job concrete and implicitly separates it from siblings like execute_action and query_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?

Gives an explicit ordered workflow: Step 1 'accounts', Step 2 'actions_details' marked REQUIRED before querying, and an Optional third call flagged as redundant with the accounts response. An agent knows exactly when to use each mode and in what order, and is told which call to skip.

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