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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing recurring monthly re-checks for the lead's lifetime, the cost model (one token per two businesses, paid once), free/skipped cases, and that it runs asynchronously returning a job id to poll. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before spending the user's tokens, none of which the hints convey.

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-loads the action and its effect, then layers cost, skip rules, usage guidance, and the async follow-up in a logical order. Slightly long for a one-parameter tool, with small redundancies ("for free" / "at no cost"), but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains the return value (a job id) and the exact next call (get_job_status with kind "enrich"). Combined with cost, skip, and recurrence semantics, an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow up 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% and there is a single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by constraining which lead ids are meaningful to pass (imported or chosen leads the user cares about) and noting that some ids are skipped at no cost, which the schema's "Lead ids to enroll" does not say.

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 precise verb+resource (enroll leads) and immediately expands what enrollment means: enrich now plus monthly re-checking with change signals. This behaviorally separates it from a one-off enrichment tool, but it never names the sibling (enrich_leads) it differs from, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 selection rule ("Use it for the imported or chosen leads the user cares about most") and clear exclusions (search-found businesses already enrolled; already-enrolled leads and leads without a website are skipped), plus the required follow-up action via get_job_status. It stops short of contrasting with the one-off enrich_leads alternative.

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