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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the request is 'paid' and that it only 'prepares' a request, but it does not clarify whether charges occur immediately, what side effects happen, or what the output represents relative to the tool name 'enrich_company'.

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 one tight sentence with no filler. The key qualifiers ('paid', 'when a company name or domain is known') are front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 paid operation with no annotations, the description is too thin. It leaves ambiguity between 'prepare a request' and actually performing enrichment, and it does not help an agent decide between this and sibling tools beyond the company-name/domain condition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'company name' to the name parameter and 'domain' to the website parameter, which is helpful, but it does not explain URL formatting, whether either parameter is preferred, or the consequences of providing both.

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 states a specific action ('Prepare a paid company enrichment request') on a specific resource ('company') with an input condition ('when a company name or domain is known'). It implicitly distinguishes from person-focused siblings like enrich_person, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives clear use context: call this when a company name or domain is known. It does not mention exclusions or directly contrast with siblings such as search_companies or find_lead, but the condition is actionable enough for basic routing.

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