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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most consequential behavior: the $0.025/record price, the free-on-miss settlement rule, and the fact that all submitted records are charged if any one email resolves. It does not disclose failure handling, rate limits, or whether reveal_personal_emails changes the price.

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?

Pricing is front-loaded, which is correct, but the Free-on-Miss rule is explained three times and the 'Submit has_email: true IDs from search_people's unlock hint' instruction appears verbatim twice. Roughly half the text is redundant repetition rather than new information.

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, unannotated, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the cost model and input sourcing, which is the critical part. It omits the return shape (what an enriched profile contains, how misses are represented per record) and the purpose of the reveal_personal_emails flag, leaving an agent unable to predict results or control cost.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds real meaning to the 'details' array by specifying which IDs to submit (has_email: true from search_people). However, reveal_personal_emails is entirely unaddressed in both description and schema, which is a meaningful gap for a field that plausibly affects output and possibly cost.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Batch person enrichment') plus a clear scope ('1 to 10 profiles per call') and an audience qualifier ('high-throughput agents'). The 'batch' framing implicitly separates it from the single-record sibling enrich_person, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition for input: 'Submit has_email: true IDs from search_people's unlock hint,' which points the agent at the right upstream tool and the right field. It does not explicitly say when to prefer enrich_person over this batch tool or what to do with records that lack an ID.

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