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

The annotations already signal that this is not read-only and has destructive side effects, and the description adds useful behavioral context: credit costs per output type, fast/deep brief pricing, and that empty or unavailable datasets are free. 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?

Three sentences carry a large amount of information with no obvious filler. The phrasing is somewhat jargon-heavy ('independently statused', 'structured hits'), which slightly hurts readability, but the structure is otherwise efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers pricing, dataset options, and depth semantics, which are essential. However, there is no output schema and no mention of whether this is asynchronous, whether the response needs to be polled via get_operation, or what a caller receives after a successful enrichment. For a paid operation with idempotency support, that missing operational context is a notable gap.

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 only 50%, leaving 'want' and 'depth' without descriptions. The description compensates by explaining that 'want' maps to datasets like profile, technologies, funding, relationships, or brief, and that 'depth' corresponds to fast or deep briefs with different costs. It does not add meaning to idempotency_key, but the schema already documents that adequately.

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 states a specific action ('Enrich one company domain') and enumerates the datasets it can return: profile, technologies, funding, relationships, or a brief. This is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish enrich_company from the sibling tool 'enrich', so it stops 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 description gives no guidance on when to choose enrich_company over the sibling 'enrich' or other tools like find_companies. It describes what the tool does and its pricing, but not the conditions or contexts that make it the right choice.

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