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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the operation is asynchronous and returns a new job id, which is important for a job-creating tool with no output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the verb, the async nature, the capability list, and the return value with no filler. The trailing 'etc.' is slightly vague but minor.

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 an async job-creation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (prerequisite, async, return id) but omits guidance on retrieving results via get_job/get_job_results and does not explain the full enrichment enum.

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 67%, and the description only names a subset of the 15 enum values (emails, reviews, socials, techstack, verify_emails) while ignoring email_mode and source_job_id semantics. It adds some flavor but does not compensate for the remaining coverage gap, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Enrich the results of a finished job') and enumerates the enrichment capabilities, which distinguishes it from create_scrap_job and create_pipeline. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, keeping it 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 'results of a finished job' implies the prerequisite (a source job with status=done, confirmed in the schema), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing among the sibling job-creation tools.

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