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

The description contradicts the annotations: it describes a key-generation operation, which is non-destructive, but annotations set destructiveHint to true. No disclosure of the discrepancy is provided, and the tool's openWorldHint is not explained. This is a clear annotation contradiction.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a cost note. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description covers the purpose and use case but omits details about the return format (e.g., string key) and behavioral aspects like idempotency or determinism. Given the low complexity (2 params, no output schema), it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 already describes both parameters well (coverage 100%). The description adds no new information about parameter formats, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 company name and street address, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly targets business-location deduplication, distinguishing it from siblings like interzoid_company_match_advanced or interzoid_address_match_advanced by focusing on the combined entity.

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 clear context ('ideal for business-location deduplication across vendor, supplier, and account datasets') but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives. This is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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