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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the chaining contract that get_apollo_organizations_id consumes the id this call returns, plus billing context. The return-field enumeration is largely redundant with the output schema, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then alternatives, then chaining guidance. Slightly padded by the long list of return fields that the output schema already defines, plus an injected pricing block, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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?

Covers what it does, when to use it, its two alternatives, and the id hand-off to the detail sibling. With an output schema present, return values need not be documented, and nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the single-parameter contract and adds a caveat beyond the schema ('must be the bare domain (apple.com), not a full URL'), which sharpens the format requirement rather than merely restating it.

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 and resource ('Enrich one company by domain'), and explicitly names the siblings it is not (post_apollo_organizations_bulk_enrich, get_apollo_organizations_id). An agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 explicit routing: 'Use it as the entry point when all you have is a domain,' bulk for 'several domains at once,' and get_apollo_organizations_id for 'the full record including funding and technology detail.' Conditions for choosing alternatives are all spelled out.

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