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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description only adds that results are workspace-scoped and ordered by recency; it says nothing about pagination, how 'most recent' is bounded, or limit behavior, so it adds modest value over 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized for a simple list tool, though at this length the terseness is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 explained. However, for a required-parameter listing tool the description omits the only input's semantics and any indication of result volume or ordering guarantees, leaving it minimally but not fully complete.

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 0% and the single required parameter 'limit' (integer, 1-100) is never mentioned in the description. Since coverage is well under 50%, the description needs to compensate for the undocumented parameter but does not, leaving the agent to guess at the meaning and bounds of 'limit' and whether large limits are truncated.

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 ('List') and resource ('research jobs') scoped to the current workspace with an implicit ordering ('most recent'). The one wrinkle is that the tool is named enrichment_list while the description says 'research jobs', which sits alongside sibling tools like sheets_research/sheets_research_status, so the resource identity is slightly ambiguous, and no sibling (enrichment_get, enrichment_start) is named.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to enrichment_get, and there is no indication of when listing is preferable to fetching or starting a job.

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