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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that caller gateway credentials are used and that charges and authorization are handled by the gateway, but it does not state read-only behavior, result limits, or what kind of suggestions are returned.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. Its first sentence is arguably too terse, but the structure is efficient.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter autocomplete tool with no output schema, so the description should clarify that it returns keyword suggestions for a partial input. It covers billing/authorization context but leaves the actual lookup behavior somewhat implicit.

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%, and the single query parameter is already documented as a "partial keyword." The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, 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 says only "Lookup keywords," which is a vague purpose and does not mention autocomplete, partial matching, or company keywords. The title and tool name help, but the description itself does not clearly distinguish this from sibling autocomplete tools such as companies, positions, or technologies autocomplete.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other CompanyEnrich autocomplete tools. The only contextual note concerns gateway credentials and billing, not task selection or alternatives.

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