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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: that the same key implies both similar name AND similar address (a conjunction, not either/or), and the per-call cost of $0.01 USDC via x402, which matters for an agent deciding whether to batch. It does not discuss rate limits or key format, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing work: purpose, matching semantics, cost. The use case and the key behavioral claim are front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: the output is a single combined similarity key, and equality of keys means a match on both name and address. What is missing is whether the key is a string/hash and whether a numeric score is also returned, but the essential contract is present.

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 100%, with both parameters documented and exemplified ('100 Main Street', 'James Johnston'). The description only restates that the inputs are a full name and a street address, adding no format, normalization, or international-handling guidance beyond the schema. 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: it generates one combined similarity key from full name plus street address, framed as household/contact deduplication. This implicitly distinguishes it from single-field siblings like interzoid_fullname_match and interzoid_address_match, though it never names those alternatives. Clear enough to act on, but sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied through the framing 'for high-precision contact and household matching across customer, donor, and marketing lists', which tells the agent the domain but not when to prefer this over interzoid_company_and_fullname_match or the single-field match tools. No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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