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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive flags, so the credit-charging rule (0.5 credits, billed only on a successful match) is genuinely additive context an agent needs to avoid surprise spend. It does not, however, discuss rate limits, lookup latency, or what happens on a miss beyond the billing point.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: purpose first, return payload second, cost caveat last. Every sentence carries information the agent would otherwise lack.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description needn't restate return fields, and the cost model is disclosed. The only shortfall is the absence of routing guidance against the other organizations_* siblings.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema already gives the "stripe.com" example and minLength), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or normalization guidance beyond what the schema supplies.

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 (enrich) applied to a specific resource (a company, keyed by domain) and even names the payload returned (firmographics, socials, website data). This clearly separates it from the sibling organizations_search, which retrieves rather than enriches.

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?

The usage is implied — you call it when you already hold a company domain and want enrichment — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling organizations_search or organizations_find_decision_maker, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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