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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits, data freshness, or failure modes, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

At six words, the description is extremely concise and front-loads the core purpose ('Combined person and company enrichment'), with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only one simple parameter, the description lacks enough detail to help an agent decide between combined_enrichment and its related single-purpose siblings; it would benefit from one sentence on when to use this combined call. The basic input requirement is clear, and the output schema covers return values, so this is a moderate gap.

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?

The schema contains a single email field with format and pattern, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's 'by email' merely restates the parameter name and adds no new semantic detail, so it does little to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Combined person and company enrichment by email' clearly states the operation (combined enrichment) and the resource (person+company data via email). It distinguishes from siblings like person_enrichment and company_enrichment through the word 'Combined' and the 'by email' scope, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 word 'Combined' implies this tool should be used when both person and company enrichment are needed in one call, but the description never explicitly states when to choose it over person_enrichment or company_enrichment, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is only implied, not stated.

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