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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about the returned result pack contents and source attribution, exceeding the annotation bar without contradicting it. It does not mention cost implications or failure modes, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 a single dense sentence that packs multiple output fields without unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded and every phrase contributes meaning, though its length makes it slightly harder to parse than a shorter structured breakdown.

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 tool with 5 parameters, a cost cap, and PII mode, the description lacks essential operational guidance. It does not explain when or why to set max_price_usdc, what required_fields controls, or how pii_mode affects results. The output schema covers return values, but the input semantics are too vague for a complex tool.

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 only 40% (url and domain have descriptions). The description reiterates domain/url but leaves pii_mode, max_price_usdc, and required_fields completely unexplained. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage, so the agent is left without guidance on three key parameters.

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 clearly states it fetches a public domain/homepage and returns a structured result pack with specific fields (company info, industry guess, technographics, useful paths, confidence, sources, receipt hash). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on URL extraction or quote data.

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 description implies it is used for domain enrichment, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus extract_url_result or quote_data_result, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Clear context but no alternative comparison.

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