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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonable work: it discloses the auth requirement ('Requires a Bearer key'), the exact upstream sources queried, and that results come back with an aggregate 'risk_summary'. It does not cover rate limits, error behavior, or what happens when neither optional parameter is supplied.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. The data-source enumeration is dense but each clause carries information; the auth note is correctly placed last as a secondary constraint.

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?

Key omissions remain for a 2-optional-parameter tool with no output schema: the description hints at a 'risk_summary' but says nothing about the shape of the response, and it does not state whether name, domain, or both are needed for a meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents 'name' and 'domain' with examples. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('enrich'/'One-call domain/company enrichment') and enumerates exactly what data is gathered: DNS A records, CT names, GLEIF LEI, OFAC SDN, and a web snapshot. This implicitly distinguishes it from single-source siblings like dns_lookup and ofac_sanctions_search, though it never names them explicitly.

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 phrase 'One-call' implies the tool should be preferred when the caller wants everything at once instead of calling the individual sibling tools, but this is left to inference. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are stated.

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