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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does well on results (masked last names, no emails, has_email flag) and on billing (charged only if a result has has_email: true). It omits permission/auth requirements, rate limits, and the 5-page pagination ceiling, so behavioral coverage is good but incomplete for a 10-parameter tool with zero annotation support.

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 free-on-miss pricing rule is restated almost verbatim twice within a single description, and the cost parenthetical in the opening is nested and hard to parse. Useful content (masked identities, Apollo IDs, enrichment hand-off) is split by duplicated billing text rather than front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what comes back: masked last names, no emails, a has_email flag, and Apollo IDs usable downstream. What remains unstated is result-count/pagination behavior and the fact that no parameter is required, which matters for a broad people-search 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 80%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter with examples (titles, employee_ranges, domains, locations, seniorities). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Search professionals across 275M+ profiles') and explicitly characterizes the output ('partial identities with masked last names and no emails'), which distinguishes it from enrich_person. The core purpose is however buried inside a dense pricing preamble, so an agent must read past cost boilerplate to find it.

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 gives concrete next-step routing: use 'next_step (enrich_person)' or 'unlock (bulk_enrich_people)' with the returned Apollo IDs to resolve verified emails, which tells an agent exactly what follows this search. It does not cover when to prefer search_organizations first or note that all ten parameters are optional/empty-search behavior.

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