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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a premium API costing $0.25 USDC via x402, and the output includes AI-generated reasoning about legitimacy. These details inform cost and output characteristics beyond annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then cost. It contains zero redundancy and every clause adds value. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the score range, the reasoning component, and the cost. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for a verification tool. The annotations cover safety, so nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already provides a full description for the only parameter ('Company or organization name to verify') with an example. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, such as format nuances or constraints. 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 verifies company existence and returns a verification score (0-99) with AI-generated reasoning about legitimacy. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like interzoid_business_info or interzoid_company_match_advanced, which focus on different aspects like business data or matching.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions for selecting this over similar options like interzoid_company_match_advanced. An agent must infer usage solely from the purpose statement, which is insufficient given the many related tools.

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