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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the cost ($0.01 USDC via x402) and clarifying the semantic meaning of the generated key. It does not describe the output format, but since there is no output schema, a mention of the return value (a key) is implied by 'generate a single combined... key'.

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 three concise sentences that each add distinct value: what it does, what the result means, and when to use it (plus cost). There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, key semantics, use case, and cost. It clearly implies the return value (the similarity key), making it complete for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 (address, fullname) are fully documented in the schema with examples and descriptions. The description only repeats that they are used to generate the key, adding no new information about formats, constraints, or edge cases. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a combined similarity key from a full name and address, and explains what the key signifies (records with the same key share both a similar address and name). This explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools like interzoid_fullname_match (name only) and interzoid_address_match_advanced (address only).

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 a specific use case ('high-precision household/contact-level deduplication') that implies when this tool should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the combined name+address focus makes the intended scenario clear. Slightly more explicit guidance (e.g., 'for name-only matching use X') would earn a 5.

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