submit_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the async nature (returns a jobId) and the polling requirement, but does not disclose auth needs, error handling, idempotency, or side effects of enrichment, which are material for a tool with potential write behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with action and inputs, then the return mechanism. It is concise and every word contributes useful information with no 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 simple async submission tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, input types, and the expected return (jobId) in relation to check_lookup. It doesn't mention prerequisites like token setup, but the sibling set_token hints at that. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions ('Contact email addresses to enrich' and 'LinkedIn profile URLs to enrich') and formats, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description repeats these inputs without adding extra meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Enrich one or more contacts by email address or LinkedIn URL.' It also distinguishes itself from check_lookup by explaining that it returns a jobId to poll, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: it's the submission step that yields a jobId for polling with check_lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly mention any alternatives or when not to use it, leaving a small gap.

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