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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them while adding real value beyond them: per-call pricing ($0.05 B2 tier), plan inclusion (Understanding and Influence), a dated migration note about base groups, and the assurance that the context parameter is never used to rank. It does not describe failure modes, rate limits, or response shape.

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?

Front-loaded with the core value proposition and the group list, and every sentence carries information (scope, groups, pricing, migration). The pricing and the 'Understanding plan — the base groups moved...' clause are dense and the latter is ambiguous about what actually changed, slightly diluting an otherwise efficient 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating that it returns exactly the requested groups and by enumerating the valid groups and defaults. Pricing and plan coverage round out the operational picture; only failure/edge behavior is unaddressed, which is minor for a read-only enrichment call.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, fields, and context in detail; the description restates the group list and the default set without adding syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (enrich a provider) and immediately names the four sibling tools it replaces (get_provider, get_provider_rating, get_provider_artifacts, get_provider_onboarding), plus enumerates the available field groups. An agent can distinguish this from the chained-call siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the when-to-use case: one call instead of chaining get_provider + get_provider_rating + get_provider_artifacts + get_provider_onboarding, and explains the selection mechanism ('pick your field groups'). It names the alternatives clearly but offers no when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites (e.g., when a single cheap get_provider call suffices).

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