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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two critical behaviors: cost ($0.01 USDC per call) and the payment flow (returns x402 payment requirements, wallet executes the payment). It does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or failure modes for unreachable domains, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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-loads the core purpose, then detection method, pricing, payment mechanics, and an example — a logical order. The opening 'Company enrichment from domain — lead data:' framing is slightly redundant preamble, but the rest of the text is dense and earns its place.

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 values need not be restated, and the description already previews the shape (per-technology confidence and evidence). Cost and payment flow are covered. What remains thin is guidance on the tool's boundaries versus its many sibling enrichment tools.

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 only one parameter exists, so the schema alone gives no guidance. The example 'tech_stack(domain="acme.com")' clarifies that the parameter is a bare registrable domain (no protocol, path, or URL), which is meaningful semantic information beyond the schema's bare 'string' type.

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 and resource ('Identify the web technologies powering a domain') and enumerates the detected categories (CMS, frameworks, analytics, CDNs) plus the data sources (HTTP headers, page markup). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like headers, dns, and domain_intel.

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 frames the tool as 'lead data: tech-stack detection' and provides a concrete example call, which implies when it fits, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings such as headers or domain_intel, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than specified.

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