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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns one record with a likelihood score (1-10) or a 404 'no match' body, and clarifies the HTTP method. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 four short sentences with no filler: purpose, return behavior, usage guidance, and API endpoint all earn their place. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 endpoint with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape, match confidence behavior, and likely failure mode. With 20 parameters fully documented in the schema, the description does not need to enumerate them, though a concrete example of combining inputs would have added completeness.

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 schema fully documents all 20 parameters. The description adds a general conceptual framing ('identifying attributes') but no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Find the single best-matching person profile') on a specific resource, and it names the kinds of identifying attributes accepted. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling pdl_person_identify or pdl_person_search, though 'enrich' and 'single best-matching' imply a distinct purpose.

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 advises using uniquely-identifying inputs for best results, which gives useful context about how to call the tool effectively. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over pdl_person_identify, pdl_person_search, or pdl_company_enrich, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria.

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