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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real traits: a free preflight/validation step, a signed receipt, stated 'identity limitations', and an explicit price of 0.007 USDC. That is meaningful context beyond the schema. But the traits are named without detail — what 'identity limitations' or a 'signed receipt' actually mean for the agent, and failure/refund behavior, are left unstated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it is, free preflight, price) come early. It is efficient, though 'identity limitations' is vague enough to read as filler.

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 28-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is far too thin. It omits how the many identifier parameters interact, what the result contains, and how it differs from the closely related enrichment siblings, so the agent cannot confidently invoke it from the definition alone.

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?

The tool has 28 parameters with only 7% schema description coverage, so the description is required to compensate and instead says nothing about any parameter. The rich identifier semantics ('pdl_id, email, email_hash, phone, lid, profile, or name plus context') live in the schema description, not in the tool description, leaving over two dozen undocumented fields unexplained.

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 resource ('Business-contact enrichment'), which separates it semantically from the company_/entity_/person_enrichment_evidence siblings. However, the actual operation is nominalized rather than a verb ('enrichment'), and the description never explicitly says what happens to the input or what it returns, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent why it would pick contact_enrichment_evidence over person_enrichment_evidence or entity_enrichment_evidence, nor what input combinations are valid contexts. The mention of a 'free input preflight' hints at a workflow step but does not constitute usage guidance or an exclusion.

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