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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them: the free-tier quota (3 calls/day across all tools), the $0.022 USDC x402 or card-credit pricing with the exact in-band payment location (params._meta["x402/payment"]), and a data-scope constraint ('only each company's own website and DNS; no personal data'). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before spending a quota call.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the output inventory is packed into a parenthetical rather than sprawled. Minor deduction because the billing boilerplate is front-loaded ahead of the actual purpose, pushing the task-relevant content to the second half.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't spell out return values, yet it still summarizes the payload; combined with pricing, payment mechanism, data-scope limits, and batch size, an agent has everything required to decide and call 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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('comma-separated domains, max 10') at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description repeats the 10-domain cap but adds no format or validation detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Company enrichment batch') with an explicit scale bound ('up to 10 domains in one call') and enumerates what comes back (profile: name, description, socials, key pages, email provider; tech stack). The batch scope plus the combined profile+techstack payload clearly separates it from the single-domain siblings company_profile and company_techstack.

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 'When to use' line only restates the purpose ('enrich a list of up to 10 domains in one call'), which does imply the batching condition but names no alternative. It never says to use company_profile/company_techstack for single domains or company_contacts when contacts are wanted, and gives no exclusion for the 10-domain limit overflow.

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