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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the cost of $0.01 USDC via x402 and the output as a 0-100 score, which is not present in annotations. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and expectations.

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 plus a cost statement, front-loading the core action and output in the first sentence. It avoids redundancy and includes only essential information: purpose, output range, use case, and cost. This is a model of efficient prose.

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 correctly explains that the tool returns a match score from 0-100, covering the primary return value. It also mentions cost, which is relevant for invocation. Missing details such as response envelope or error behavior are minor for a simple comparison tool, so the definition is nearly complete.

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% with both parameters described as 'First organization name' and 'Second organization name to compare'. The description only says 'two organization/company names' without adding additional semantic detail like normalization, matching algorithm behavior, or format preferences. Since the schema already documents parameters fully, 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 compares two organization/company names and returns a 0-100 similarity score, naming the exact verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like address matching or full name matching, and the phrase 'organization/company names' differentiates it from interzoid_company_match_advanced which implies broader company 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 indicates usefulness for determining if two company names refer to the same entity, providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like interzoid_company_match_advanced or interzoid_company_verification, nor does it specify any exclusions or conditions that would make a sibling more appropriate.

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