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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses pricing (0.006 USDC), that input preflight/validation happens before payment, and that output includes attribution and a signed receipt. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, failure behavior, or what exactly gets enriched, so the mutation/cost profile is only partially transparent.

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 core purpose and appends cost. No filler, though the trailing list of output features flattens the emphasis slightly.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description partially compensates by summarizing the response shape (attribution, likelihood, limitations, receipt) and the payment model. It remains incomplete on parameter semantics and usage routing, which are the larger gaps.

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% across 28 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names a handful of identifier params (pdl_id, email, email_hash, phone, lid, profile, name) and notes nested input/query/subject/person/contact are accepted, but leaves the majority of parameters (school, ticker, company, region, location, birth_date, minimum_likelihood, etc.) completely 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?

The description states a specific operation and resource ('person enrichment') and lists the value-adds it returns (provider attribution, likelihood, limitations, signed receipt). This separates it from the sibling enrichment tools (company_, contact_, entity_), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 and no comparison to the numerous sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name that this is the person-specific enrichment path rather than contact_enrichment_evidence, which is not self-evident given 'contact' and 'person' overlap.

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