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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the cost model (1 lead per distinct domain), the deduplication semantics (acme.com, www.acme.com, https://acme.com/contact count once), and the asynchronous contract (returns a search_id to poll). These are billing and lifecycle facts the annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the precondition and action, then cost, then the return/polling path. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing operational meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is unnecessary, yet the description still tells the agent the key next step (poll get_search_results with the returned search_id). Limits, cost, dedup behavior, and output shape are all covered for a single-parameter tool.

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 schema already documents the domains array with a max-10 note, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the normalization rule for counting distinct domains, which tells the agent how duplicate-looking inputs are billed.

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: run the full enrichment + verification pipeline on up to 10 website domains, listing the concrete outputs (verified emails + phones, owner name, socials). This is clearly distinct from sibling search tools like search_leads and query_leads because the agent supplies domains it already has rather than searching.

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?' frames the precondition for use and implicitly contrasts with discovery/search siblings, and it explicitly routes the agent to get_search_results for polling. It stops short of naming the alternative discovery tool to use when the agent does not already have domains.

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