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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail in the explicit price ($0.10 USDC via x402) and the note that language choice does not change cost. It stops short of describing result shape or behavior when a lookup fails.

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, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then use cases, then cost. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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 burden of explaining results and does so ('standard registered corporate name'), and it documents the global scope and language behavior. It leaves the response envelope and not-found handling unstated, a minor gap for a single-lookup tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by clarifying that the lookup accepts abbreviation, brand, ticker, informal name, domain, or misspelling and by showing the input-to-output transformation ('ibm' → 'International Business Machines Corporation').

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 ('resolves ... to the standard registered corporate name') and enumerates accepted input forms, plus a concrete example. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-duplicate siblings like interzoid_official_name, interzoid_org_standard, or interzoid_business_info.

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?

Gives clear use-case context — record standardization, matching, deduplication, CRM and vendor master data — so the agent knows the domain where this belongs. It offers no when-not conditions and names no alternative even though interzoid_official_name appears to overlap heavily.

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