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 per-call cost ($0.05 USDC), the payment flow (returns x402 payment requirements, wallet executes payment), and the response shape (single fused response with an aggregated signals list). It omits rate limits, failure behavior, and per-signal error handling, keeping it short of a 5.

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 the purpose, then signal list, then pricing/payment, then an example — a sensible ordering with little waste. Slightly dense for the number of ideas packed into a few lines, but every sentence carries information.

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 explanation is unnecessary, and the payment/authorship mechanics are covered. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the many overlapping single-purpose siblings, which an agent calling this composite tool would benefit from.

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% and the single 'domain' parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description implies its meaning ('enrichment from domain') and gives a concrete call example: dossier(domain="acme.com"). That compensates partially for the gap without adding format/syntax detail.

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 — composite domain dossier') and enumerates exactly which signal families it fuses (RDAP, DNS, tech stack, email patterns/MX, SSL/TLS). The 'fused into a single response' framing distinguishes it from the single-signal siblings like dns, ssl_check, and tech_stack.

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?

Usage is only implied: the composite/aggregated framing suggests 'use this when you want all signals at once', but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., 'use dns instead if you only need DNS records'). The example call is helpful but not a routing rule.

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