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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a concrete cost ($0.02 USDC per call) and the x402 payment handshake (the tool returns payment requirements and the agent's wallet executes the payment). It does not mention rate limits, caching, or failure behavior, and return payload detail is left to the output schema.

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?

Four tightly packed lines with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by data sources, price, payment mechanics, and an example. Slight redundancy between the opening 'Company enrichment from domain' and the 'lead data' clause, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value description is unnecessary; the description covers purpose, data sources, cost, and the payment flow an agent must handle. The main remaining gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to the many domain/lead siblings.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, but the description supplies a concrete worked example, domain_intel(domain="acme.com"), which removes ambiguity about the expected value format. It does not clarify edge cases such as subdomains, URLs, or IDN domains, so it falls short of full compensation.

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+resource ('Company enrichment from domain') and enumerates the exact data returned (RDAP registrar and creation/expiry dates plus DNS infrastructure signals). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings such as dns, dossier, or lookup_lead.

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 enrichment framing implies the use case (lead/company data from a bare domain), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement about when to prefer sibling tools like dns or lookup_lead. The example shows invocation format, not selection criteria.

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