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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral traits: free input preflight, identity limitations, signed receipt, and the 0.007 USDC cost. But it omits whether the operation is read-only, what the signed receipt contains, and possible failure modes.

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 a single tight sentence, front-loading the core purpose and packing cost, preflight, and identity constraints without filler. It could be slightly better structured, but it earns its brevity.

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 tool with 28 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, one line is insufficient. An agent cannot determine which identifier to pass, what the signed receipt looks like, or how identity limitations affect the enrichment result.

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 only 7%, yet the description names no parameters and gives no guidance on the 28 inputs. It only implies the input is a business contact, which does little to clarify how to populate fields like lid, pdl_id, query, or subject.

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 'Business-contact enrichment' – a specific verb and resource – and the 'business-contact' qualifier helps distinguish it from company or person enrichment siblings. However, it does not name any sibling or explicitly state what the evidence output looks like.

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?

No usage context or alternatives are provided. The description mentions preflight and identity limitations but never says when to use this tool over company_enrichment_evidence, person_enrichment_evidence, or entity_enrichment_evidence.

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