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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses crawl scope (homepage plus contact/about pages), output types, and the $0.005 USDC payment mechanism. It does not mention rate limits, failure behavior when no contacts are found, or crawl politeness, which leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then input alternatives, then cost. Every clause carries distinct information and the pricing detail is placed at the end where it is easy to find.

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, so the description appropriately enumerates return values, and it covers input shape and cost. It is nearly complete, but for a paid crawl tool with no annotations it could do more to set expectations around empty results, crawl depth limits, or rate-limiting behavior.

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 75%, with url and free_trial/x402_payment already documented in the schema. The description only adds the either/or relationship between url and domain ('Input: {url} or {domain}') and does not explain the undocumented domain parameter or the payment flow beyond its price, so it adds marginal value over 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 gives a precise verb and scope: crawl a domain's homepage plus contact/about pages and return specific enrichment fields (emails, phones, socials, title/description, tech). It is clear enough that an agent knows exactly what resource is produced, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling url_to_markdown, which also operates on a URL.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Company/website enrichment' and the contact-focused output, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over siblings like url_to_markdown or api_lookup, nor any exclusions. The 'Input: {url} or {domain}' note gives some invocation context but stops short of guidance.

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