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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the call returns immediately with a job reference and that progress must be polled via get_pipeline_status. It does not describe the eventual effect of enrichment or any limits, but the async behavior is the critical missing piece not present in the 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?

Two compact sentences front-load the action and then give the essential async follow-up. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-parameter async trigger with no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation and follow-up context. It is slightly thin on what 'multimodal enrichment' produces or changes, but the agent has enough to call correctly and monitor progress.

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%, so the single productId parameter is already documented as a Pollen internal product ID. The description's 'single product' phrasing mildly reinforces that productId refers to one product, but it adds no format or additional semantic detail.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Run Pollen's multimodal enrichment on a single product.' It also differentiates from its sibling enrich_all_products by emphasizing 'single product' and from get_product/update_product_facts by framing enrichment as a distinct operation.

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?

It clearly frames this as the single-item enrichment path and tells the caller to check get_pipeline_status after the call. It does not explicitly name enrich_all_products as the batch alternative, so it stops short of the explicit when-not/alternatives guidance needed for a 5.

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