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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description reinforces this with 'GET /ip/enrich'. It adds behavior beyond the schema: a 1:1 match against PDL's IP dataset, returning location/company data and optionally person data. It does not discuss rate limits or no-match behavior, but the readOnlyHint lowers the burden.

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 only two sentences and each one earns its place: the first states the purpose and output, the second gives the exact endpoint. There is no filler, redundancy, or repetition of the tool name/title.

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?

For a read-only enrichment tool with one required parameter and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers what the tool does and how to invoke it. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by naming the returned data categories, though the exact response shape and no-match behavior are not specified.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'optionally associated person data' loosely maps to return_person, but it adds no extra semantics for ip, pretty, titlecase, or min_confidence beyond what the schema 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 specifies a concrete verb ('enrich'), resource ('IP address'), and outcome ('location, company, and (optionally) associated person data'). It also names the matching mode ('1:1 match') and the API endpoint, which clearly distinguishes it from the person/company search and identify siblings.

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 implies exact-match lookup ('1:1 match') and hints at a person-data use case, giving some context for when to call it. However, it never explicitly tells an agent when to prefer this tool over pdl_person_identify or the other search/enrich siblings, nor does it state any exclusions.

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