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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the payment model ($0.003 USDC on Base), the settlement rule (only successful reads charge; invalid input, not-found and upstream errors cancel), and enumerates the returned data domains. It still omits auth/paymentSignature requirements and any latency or multi-match behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by the return coverage and then pricing. The long field enumeration is dense but each item is a genuine capability claim; only the parenthetical currency note could be trimmed.

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 4-param lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input keys, output breadth and cost behavior — the essentials an agent needs to decide and pay. The main residual gap is disambiguation against near-identical company_* and entity_* 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, name, domain and paymentSignature. The description restates the three lookup keys but adds no precedence rule (e.g. whether id wins over name and domain) or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Enrich) plus resource (company) with explicit scope qualifiers — private, startup or listed, worldwide, not just US — and three accepted identifiers. It is clearly distinguishable in domain from chain_* or audit_* siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with the very close company_profile / company_search / entity_search siblings.

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 scope note ('not just US', covers private and listed) implies when this is the right enrichment tool, and the three identifier styles hint at call strategies. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus company_profile, company_search, entity_search or enrich_business_lead, and no when-not guidance or prerequisites.

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