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

The description discloses that the tool is asynchronous: it returns a job reference and directs the agent to get_pipeline_status for progress. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is short and front-loaded: it opens with the action and scope, then gives the async behavior and progress-checking instruction. The closing 'primary do the work action' phrase is somewhat vague but is brief and does not meaningfully clutter the description.

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 zero-parameter async trigger, the description covers the key operational facts: what is enriched, what the call returns, and how to monitor it. It does not elaborate on downstream side effects or the exact meaning of enrichment, but the sibling tool set and annotations provide enough surrounding context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level burden on the description. The description still provides useful context about what the parameterless call operates on: the full catalog of PENDING and FAILED products.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Run enrichment') and a precise resource scope: the merchant's full catalog, filtered to PENDING + FAILED products. This distinguishes it from a single-product tool like enrich_product and adds operational detail beyond the tool name.

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 labels this as 'the primary do the work action,' which implies broad whole-catalog usage, and the PENDING + FAILED scope gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives such as enrich_product for single-product enrichment.

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