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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a concrete cost (3 credits), which is real value beyond structured fields, but says nothing about what the enrichment returns, auth requirements, 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?

Two short sentences with the operation front-loaded and the cost constraint following. Every word earns its place; nothing is padded or 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must convey what an agent gets back from an enrichment call, and it does not. Whether it returns firmographics, employee counts, or revenue is left entirely unknown, which is a meaningful gap for this tool type.

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 parameters (domain, company_name) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The phrase 'by domain' merely reinforces the required param and adds no syntax, format, or fallback detail beyond it.

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 (enrich), a specific resource (company data), and the keying mechanism (by domain), which an agent can distinguish from generic siblings like search or scrape. It stops short of naming or contrasting any actual sibling tool, so no explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only usage-adjacent content is a cost note, which is a budgeting hint rather than an invocation rule.

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