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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds value the annotations do not: the call is free ('no payment needed') and the response is a catalog containing per-function pricing and language acceptance. It does not mention pagination, result size, or rate limits, which keeps it out of the 5 band.

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?

Three tight sentences with the cost fact front-loaded, followed by the content inventory and the routing instruction. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs to decide to call it.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields the listing exposes (inputs, output fields, price, language). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100% and the single optional 'function' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the omit-to-list-all behavior. The description adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Specific verb (lists) plus specific resource (the enrichment functions available to interzoid_enrich_records), and it enumerates exactly what each entry contains: output fields, inputs, price per record/per 100 records, language support. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling interzoid_enrich_records, which performs the enrichment rather than cataloging the options.

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?

Explicitly states the sequencing: 'Call it to choose the right function before enriching records,' which routes the agent to this catalog ahead of interzoid_enrich_records. It gives a clear when-to-use condition but no explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions, so it stops just short of the top band.

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