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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it charges 0.5 credits only when the company is found, and it instructs sending an Idempotency-Key header for safe retries. These are non-obvious side effects and requirements that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 description is three tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then return data, then billing and retry guidance. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 and annotations, the description covers the key operational details: what data is returned, the credit cost condition, and retry safety. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including an example ('stripe.com'). The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Enrich') with a clear resource ('a company from its domain') and specifies the type of data returned (firmographics, socials, website data). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search-oriented tools like organizations_search or businesses_search.

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 clearly conveys when to use the tool: when you have a company domain and want enrichment data rather than search/find operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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