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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context by disclosing a free input preflight, provider attribution, signed evidence, and a fixed price of 0.005 USDC, which helps an agent understand billing and validation behavior. However, it omits broader operational details such as authentication requirements, data source behavior, failure modes, and return structure, so it 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?

The description is a single dense sentence with no filler: it names the operation, key features, and cost. The information is packed tightly, though it slightly sacrifices clarity by relying on jargon like 'provider attribution' without elaboration.

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?

Given 28 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It provides no invocation guidance, no examples, no explanation of what the signed evidence contains, and no comparison to similar enrichment tools. An agent needing to choose parameters or interpret the result would be under-informed.

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%, and the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'company enrichment.' The schema's own description does clarify that identifier can be pdl_id, website/domain, profile, ticker, name, company, or identifier and that nested inputs are accepted, but the remaining ~26 parameters are opaque. The description does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 identifies a clear domain ('Company enrichment') and distinguishes it from sibling evidence tools such as contact_enrichment_evidence, person_enrichment_evidence, and entity_enrichment_evidence by naming the company scope. It does not state what the returned 'signed evidence' contains, which leaves some ambiguity about the tool's exact output, but the primary purpose is recognizable.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives like contact_enrichment_evidence or entity_enrichment_evidence. There are no exclusion criteria, no mention of alternatives, and no condition-based routing. The only implicit signal is that it is for company-related enrichment.

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