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

The description adds the per-call cost via x402, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose error handling, domain format requirements, or whether results may be partial, and no annotations are provided.

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 description is two sentences, with the purpose and key outputs front-loaded, and the pricing note efficiently appended. Every clause adds value.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter input and no output schema, the description covers the core function, output fields, and pricing. It lacks details on response structure or edge cases, but is largely sufficient for a straightforward lookup.

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?

The only parameter 'domain' is not described beyond its name in the schema, and the description only says 'from a domain' without specifying expected format (e.g., bare domain vs URL). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate.

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 states 'Company enrichment from a domain' and enumerates the specific data returned (name, description, logo, social links, contact emails/phones), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like profile_lookup or kdp_lookup.

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 description implies usage for enriching a company's data given a domain but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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