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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real context beyond them: real-time compute cached server-side after the first call, a flat 2-credit cost per successful call, and a BYOK requirement. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs (cost + auth) that structured fields do not carry. It stops short of noting rate limits or failure behavior.

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 purpose, then return fields, then cost/auth, then an inline call example — a sensible order. The long enumeration of returned fields is dense but largely justified because no output schema exists; a few items (e.g., listing every composite score name) could be trimmed.

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 carries the return-value explanation and does so thoroughly, plus auth (BYOK via _apiKey), cost (2 credits), and caching semantics. For a 2-parameter enrichment tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with _apiKey and github_url both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the GitHub-URL intent and repeats the _apiKey example, adding little semantic detail (e.g., accepted URL variants) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (enrich) and resource (developer) plus the required input form (GitHub profile URL), and lists the exact profile fields returned. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like revternal_developer_intel or revternal_enrich_person, so the agent cannot tell which of the two similar tools to pick from name/description alone.

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?

"Use to enrich a lead or candidate you already have a GitHub URL for" gives a clear precondition that implicitly separates it from search-based siblings (revternal_search_developers, revternal_people_search). It does not name any alternative or exclusion explicitly, so a user deciding between this and revternal_developer_intel still has to infer.

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