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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it returns enriched business records and is paginated, but it omits behavior such as handling incomplete jobs, empty results, or invalid cursors.

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 definition is two short sentences with the core resource and pagination instruction front-loaded. The first sentence is a fragment and "Enriched businesses" is slightly vague, but there is no wasted wording.

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 simple read-only paginated result tool, the description is minimally adequate given the rich annotations and schema. However, with no output schema present, it could better describe the returned result shape and any job-state prerequisite.

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%, so the schema already documents job_id, limit, and cursor, including that cursor comes from the previous page's next_cursor. The description reinforces cursor pagination but adds no syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource as "Enriched businesses for a job" and notes pagination, so the agent can tell this retrieves job result records rather than job metadata. It does not explicitly name a verb or contrast with siblings such as get_job, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only usage instruction is how to paginate with next_cursor; there is no guidance on when to use get_results versus get_job or other siblings. It does not state prerequisites such as whether the job must be complete before results are available.

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