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

Goes beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing that it reads audit state only, never retries work, returns exactly one page, and that the two job kinds have incompatible status vocabularies that are never merged. Missing only things like rate limits, which are minor given annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the resource and type split come first, then the usage condition and caveats. Every sentence carries information, though the pagination warning is slightly verbose.

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 the description fills in the remaining behavioral gaps (type semantics, single-page paging, audit-only reads). Complete for correct invocation, with only minor parameter detail left implicit.

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 67% and the schema's own type enum description already spells out the enrichment_queue vs contact_finder distinction, so the description largely restates it. It adds nothing about limit, cursor, status, or workspaceId, leaving some parameters undocumented in both places – adequate but not compensating for the gap.

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 ('List recent workspace lead enrichment rows') and immediately splits it into the two distinct job kinds with their own semantics. An agent can tell this apart from sibling audit/queue tools without opening the 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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('when queue counts are not enough and the user needs bounded row-level evidence') and explains when to pass requestId versus listing. It does not name a specific alternative tool by name, so it falls just short of the top band.

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