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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), it discloses the payment protocol (x402, USDC on Base or Solana, no account/API key), the exact price, that invalid input is refused before payment and failed runs are never charged, and that an unpaid call returns PaymentRequired. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before spending money.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the field enumeration earns its length, but the pricing/payment block is verbose and the trailing HTTP URL partly duplicates the title's price and the x402 explanation.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating return categories (contacts, socials, tech stack, schema.org, domain age) and also covers cost, payment failure modes, and how to get an example call. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents that a URL or email is accepted, so the description's restatement of the same input forms adds little. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a fully documented one-param tool.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Company enrichment from a domain or email') and then enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It is clearly distinct from sibling lookups like domain_intel or link_preview even without naming them.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('lead qualification, KYB and CRM enrichment') and tells the agent to call get_example for invocation details, but never contrasts itself with the nearby domain_intel or web_extract tools, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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