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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is paid, third-party enriched, and returns decision-maker details. It also specifies it never returns government records. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, what happens if no decision-maker is found, or authentication specifics beyond the API key.

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?

The description is concise and front-loads the main action. It covers all necessary points in a single paragraph. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections for payment, constraints) to improve readability without adding length.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explicitly states the return values (named person, title, work email, LinkedIn) and a constraint (no government records). This provides sufficient context for the agent to understand what to expect, completing the tool's documentation effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing parameters: stating company is required, domain is the strongest hint, and listing name, state, title as hints. This helps the agent understand parameter relationships beyond the schema's individual 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 clearly states the tool reveals a decision-maker at a target company, including specific attributes (person, title, email, LinkedIn). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it is third-party enriched and never returns government records, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 provides clear conditions for use: it is a paid tool requiring an API key or x402 USDC payment, and it never returns government records. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_leads or other enrichment tools, missing an opportunity for when-to-use guidance.

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