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

Annotations already flag readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral value by specifying the exact return fields and the input requirement (name and/or website), plus an example invocation. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful context beyond them.

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 concise, information-dense sentences plus a compact example. The opening sentence establishes the core action and source immediately, and every element earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter external lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, output fields, and usage example. The annotations provide safety traits, and the description fills all necessary operational details for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All 3 parameters are fully described in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that 'name' and 'website' are alternatives ('and/or') and providing a usage example that shows parameter interplay, which goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool 'enriches a company' using People Data Labs and lists the specific output fields (size, employee count, industry, founding year, location, LinkedIn, website). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'pdl_person_enrich' which targets individuals.

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 provides clear context: supply a company name and/or website to get enrichment data. It includes a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to the sibling 'pdl_person_enrich' as the alternative for person data.

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