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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: cost ($0.015 USDC/record via x402 on Base), settlement only if at least one organization resolves, and $0.00 on total miss. However it is inconsistent about the billing unit ("per record" vs "priced per domain submitted"), which matters for cost prediction, and says nothing about partial failures, per-domain error handling, or rate limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the Free-on-Miss settlement rule is stated twice in near-identical wording and the price appears both as a headline and inline. Roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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 batch tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers payment mechanics well but leaves the agent guessing about the returned enrichment fields and what happens when some (not all) domains resolve. Enough to call it, not enough to fully predict the result.

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 both the domains array (1-10, with examples) and _x402_payment are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the billing fact that price scales with domains submitted, which is mild value on top of the schema baseline.

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?

"Batch company enrichment for high-throughput agents (1 to 10 domains per call)" states a specific verb (enrich), resource (company/organization), and scope (batch of 1-10). It implicitly distinguishes bulk from the singular enrich_organization and from bulk_enrich_people, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase "for high-throughput agents (1 to 10 domains per call)" implies this is the multi-domain path and that single lookups belong elsewhere, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tool is named. An agent must infer the routing rule from the sibling names.

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