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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond input sourcing — no indication of what the brief contains, whether an LLM call is involved, whether the actor consumes paid Apify credits, or how long the run takes. For an open-world generative actor this is a thin behavioral disclosure.

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 opening sentence is duplicated verbatim, wasting roughly a third of the text. The remaining content is short but the repetition signals low editorial care and pushes the useful 'Paste a dataset ID' instruction to the back.

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 a nested-parameter schema that is effectively opaque, the description should explain what the brief looks like, its format, and any cost or latency expectations for an open-world Apify actor. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict the result of a call.

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 schema only exposes a generic nested 'input' object whose description is a URL, so it conveys essentially no parameter meaning. The description compensates by telling the agent the input is a dataset ID produced by a Maps/LinkedIn scraper, which is the single most important call-time fact.

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 concrete verb and resource — turns Maps/LinkedIn scraper output into a one-page pre-call sales brief — which is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near neighbors such as google_maps_lead_enricher or b2b_crm_enricher, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which one to pick.

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?

'Paste a dataset ID' and 'Works with any Maps or company scraper output' imply the precondition (you already ran a scraper) and the intended audience (sales reps doing pre-call research). There is no explicit when-not guidance and no sibling is named as the alternative, but the usage context is inferable.

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