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

The description adds practical behavioral details beyond the annotations: the 'likely' qualifier indicates a probabilistic result, and it discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC via x402), which annotations do not cover. It does not repeat the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints already present.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by use cases and cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the single parameter and the annotations that already cover safety and idempotency, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally describe the output format, but with no output schema, the return value of 'origin' is strongly implied by the tool name and description.

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 parameter meaning with the description 'Full name to determine origin for' and an example, so the tool description does not need to add more. It provides no additional parameter-level semantics, but by baseline rules for high schema coverage, a 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 a specific action (determine) applied to a resource (individual name) with a well-defined result (likely cultural or geographic origin). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like interzoid_fullname_match (matching) and interzoid_gender (gender), which address different questions.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool ('useful for demographic analysis and internationalization'), but stops short of explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations. The use cases are specific enough to guide selection without needing to name siblings.

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