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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cost ($0.20 per call), the payment source (clink shop credits, with buy_credits as the key path), and the refund policy ('a failed or empty call is free'). It also reveals the internal scope (up to 4 pages, top 10-15 enriched). It doesn't describe the return shape or any rate limits, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability in the first sentence, followed by use cases and cost. Dense but every clause carries information; only the payment detail is slightly verbose for a description field.

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, the description must convey returns, and it does via 'clusters them with a one-line why-they-match each' alongside the website/emails/LinkedIn/GitHub enrichment. Cost and payment path are covered, though the exact response structure and any auth/key requirement beyond buy_credits remain implicit.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description loosely implies what 'max' controls by mentioning 'top 10-15' enriched people, but it doesn't clarify the enrichment scale or query syntax beyond what the schema's own examples provide.

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 chain and resource: 'searches up to 4 pages, finds the PEOPLE behind the posts, enriches the top 10-15 with their own website... and clusters them'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like x_search, x_person, and x_profile by describing the full search -> profile -> contact pipeline in one call.

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 concrete use cases ('Recruiting, B2B prospecting, cofounder/investor search') and explains the credit/payment mechanics, which is genuine usage context. It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to prefer this over x_search or x_person, so it doesn't reach the top tier.

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