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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — results are 'resumable' and enrichment is 'paid' — but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what a partial/in-flight outcome looks like.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with the cost-avoidance rationale trailing. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the unexplained scope/team_id pair is a real gap an agent could stumble on.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the meaning of person_ids ('per-person', '1–35-person') and batch_id ('batch'), but leaves scope (the only enum, own vs team) and team_id completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Read') and resource ('resumable, per-person enrichment outcomes ... for a ... batch'), which is far more precise than a bare 'get status'. It implicitly contrasts with enrich_person (the paid work) but never names a sibling to differentiate explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'before repeating any paid work' gives a concrete when-to-use cue: call this to avoid re-paying for enrichment already done. It does not name enrich_person or search_enrichment_web as the alternatives it routes away from, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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