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

Annotations cover the mutability hints, and the description adds important behavioral details: the cost of 1 lead per domain, the asynchronous nature (returns a search_id to poll), and the pipeline stages (enrichment + verification). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, each carrying distinct information: the use case, the pipeline outputs, and the cost/return behavior. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no filler words or redundant details.

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 tool with one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the input constraints, the processing pipeline, the cost, and the follow-up mechanism (get_search_results). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100% for the single 'domains' parameter, which already includes an example and maximum count. The tool description restates the 10-domain limit but does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool enriches up to 10 business domains by running a full enrichment + verification pipeline, listing specific outputs (verified emails, phones, owner name, socials). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_leads by focusing on existing domains rather than querying for new leads.

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 opening 'Already have businesses?' sets the use case for enriching existing domains, and the mention of cost per domain and polling with get_search_results gives operational context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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