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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely useful behaviors beyond them: firmographics are shared public-domain data, and provider/API-key failures are surfaced per company rather than failing the whole batch. It stays silent on whether results are persisted and on cost implications of repeated calls.

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 tight sentences; the operational fact (enrichment, batch limit) is front-loaded and the partial-failure note follows. The public-domain-data clause is somewhat terse and its purpose (privacy/storage guidance?) could be clarified, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and partial-failure behavior is covered. Yet the description leaves important gaps: the provider/clayRoutineId contract, whether existing data is overwritten, and how this differs from refresh_companies.

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 only 25% (workspaceId is documented, the rest are not). The description never mentions provider (apollo/clay enum with a default), clayRoutineId, or workspaceId, so the undocumented clayRoutineId – presumably required when provider=clay – is left entirely opaque.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Run provider firmographic enrichment ... for companies') and gives the 25-company batch cap. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like refresh_companies, edit_companies, or enrich_leads, so an agent can't route purely from the description.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus refresh_companies / enrich_leads / get_companies, nor prerequisites (does it overwrite existing firmographics? should it run only for un-enriched companies?). The only guidance-like content is the batch-size limit.

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