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's genuinely additive facts are the 0-100 score output and the $0.01 USDC x402 cost — useful, but it says nothing about latency, failure modes, or what a borderline score means, which matters for a paid scoring call.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and its return value, then uses, then cost. Dense but well-ordered; the only mild bloat is the triple use-case list.

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 only two required string parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value semantics (0-100 likelihood score) and the pricing model. An agent can call this correctly from the description alone; only sibling disambiguation is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples. The description's example pair ('General Electric' vs 'GE Corp') only illustrates that abbreviations/aliases are acceptable inputs — a marginal add over the schema's own examples.

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 ('compares two organization or company names') plus the output semantics (0-100 similarity score) and a concrete example pair. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like interzoid_company_match_advanced or interzoid_company_and_address_match, so an agent can describe the tool but not tell why it beats those alternatives.

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?

Names use cases ('verify record matches, resolve entities, review fuzzy matching results'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to the advanced/address-combined sibling variants, leaving selection among ~60 siblings to inference.

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