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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains that a check is asynchronous, involves a human re-profiling the provider, and runs a full enrichment pipeline against the live surface. It also discloses that a request id is returned immediately and that notification happens only if a contact email is supplied.

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 main action is front-loaded, followed by use-case conditions, a clarifying non-goal, and the expected request flow. Each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information, though the leading 'INFLUENCE' label is slightly cryptic and the paragraph is a bit dense.

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 an async request tool with no output schema, the description covers the important workflow: return of a request id, polling via check_status, and optional email notification. It does not enumerate the kind enum values, but those are fully described in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions the contact email and the request id, but these are already explained in the schema's contact field, so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 action — 'ask APIs.io to (re)check a provider' — and lists concrete triggers: wrong/stale listing, incorrect score, or missing company profile. It also clearly distinguishes itself from check_status by saying it does not score anything on the spot and points to polling check_status with the returned id.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it when a listing is wrong or stale, when a score looks incorrect, or to get a company profiled that is not in the catalog yet.' It also gives follow-up usage by naming check_status as the polling tool, and clarifies what this tool is not for ('does NOT score anything on the spot').

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