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

It discloses behavior that annotations cannot convey: pricing ($0.75 USDC on Base via x402) and the critical two-step mechanic that this MCP call only returns payment instructions while POST /v1/tools actually returns the result. It also states the data-quality policy (unverified fields come back as 'unknown' rather than guessed), and its 'Read-only' claim is consistent with readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and packs the essential payment and data-quality facts into a short block with no filler. The full re-listing of the eight enum values is redundant with the input schema and costs a little space.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the pricing, payment flow, and data-quality caveats an agent needs. What remains thin is routing versus the sibling lookup tools and the overlap with prospect_brief.

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% and each parameter (tool, domain, person, company) is already documented in the schema with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added parameter value is enumerating the valid 'tool' values, which the schema enum already provides.

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 gives a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('one named public-source analysis') and enumerates the eight valid analyses, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It never contrasts itself with siblings like basic_lookup, email_lookup, or prospect_brief, which appear to overlap (e.g., generate_prospect_brief vs the prospect_brief sibling), so differentiation is missing.

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?

Listing the eight analysis names implies which analysis to request, and the note about unverified fields returning 'unknown' sets expectations. But there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over basic_lookup/enriched_lookup/find_emails_batch, nor any exclusion condition, leaving usage to inference.

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