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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior enshrouded in the description. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by disclosing that this is a premium paid API with a specific cost and payment mechanism ($0.25 USDC via x402), which is highly relevant operational information.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by the returned data categories and then the crucial cost detail. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 read-only tool with one schema-covered parametermatic and no output schema, the description conveys the essential invocation details and cost. However, among dozens of specialized interzoid siblings, the absence of any selection guidance leaves significant ambiguity about when this broad 'business info' tool should be chosen over more targeted alternatives.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter, including its description and examples, so the description does not need to elaborate. It adds no new parameter semantics beyond describing the subject as a company, which is less specific than the schema's 'Company name, website, or email'.

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 states a specific action ('Retrieve') and resource ('business intelligence for a company'), and enumerates deliverable data categories such as industry, revenue, employee counts, and executive info. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like interzoid_parent_company_info or interzoid_company_verification, so it falls 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of any of the many overlapping sibling tools, nor are any exclusions or alternatives named. The cost note is business context, not usage direction.

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