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 does disclose that the operation is paid, which is an important consequence, but it does not clarify whether enrichment is actually performed or only staged, what side effects occur, or what permissions or limitations apply. 'Prepare a request' is vague about the tool's real effect.

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 sentence with no filler. The key concept—paid person enrichment—is front-loaded, and the trigger condition is stated efficiently. The brevity costs are related to completeness, not structure.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, but for a paid tool with four optional parameters and no annotations, significant gaps remain: the role of company, whether the enrichment is executed or only prepared, and how multiple identifiers interact. An agent would still need to infer too much to invoke it confidently.

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 gives meaning to name, email, and linkedin_url by framing them as identifiers sufficient to trigger enrichment, and the 'or' implies at least one is needed. However, it omits the company parameter entirely and provides no format or combination guidance.

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 names a specific operation—preparing a paid person enrichment request—and gives the triggering identifiers (email, LinkedIn URL, or name), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like enrich_company or search_people. The verb 'prepare' is slightly indirect, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 provides a clear invocation context: use this tool when an email, LinkedIn URL, or name is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as search_people for free lookups or enrich_company for company enrichment.

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