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 genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: the cost model ('Pay per record') and that deduplication/normalization happens on the input list. It does not describe processing time, list-size limits, or how the 'optional' email verification is toggled, keeping it at a middling 3.

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 duplicated: a truncated first sentence ending in '…' followed by an almost identical full sentence. That is wasted surface area and signals sloppy authoring. The core message is front-loaded, but the repetition costs it here.

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?

For a paid enrichment tool with a nested, undocumented input object, no output schema, and dozens of near-neighbor siblings, an agent needs input format, return shape, and differentiation guidance. The description supplies none of these, so it is not complete enough to drive a correct invocation without opening the external URL.

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?

There is only one parameter and its schema description is a bare URL pointer ('See https://apify.com/noniner/b2b-crm-enricher'), which documents nothing about the expected input structure. The description only obliquely implies the input is 'a messy company list', leaving format (JSON array vs CSV vs file upload), field names, and the email-verification toggle unexplained. Given the schema's coverage is nominal rather than substantive, 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 names a specific transformation chain (clean, deduplicate, enrich) and the artifacts involved (firmographics, contacts, optional email verification), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings such as ai_company_enrichment or google_maps_lead_enricher, so it falls short of a 5.

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 anywhere in the description. The only decision-relevant signal is the pricing model ('Pay per record'), which hints at cost sensitivity but does not tell the agent when to pick this over the many other enrichment tools in the catalog.

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