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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's main added value is the pricing disclosure ('$0.01 USDC via x402'), which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding whether to call. It stops short of describing the return value or any failure modes, but that is a modest gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by when to use it and the cost. No filler or redundancy; every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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, single-input, read-only utility with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies purpose, example, use cases, and pricing. The only missing piece is what the standardized output looks like, which is minor without an output schema but not entirely negligible.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'org' fully, including the B.O.A. example. The description repeats that same example rather than adding new semantics such as accepted input length, formats, or how ambiguous names are handled, so it stays at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('converts an organization name to its standard form') and clarifies the normalization dimension with a concrete example ('b.o.a.' to 'Bank of America'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as interzoid_official_name or interzoid_company_verification, which an agent would need to choose between.

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 states clear usage contexts: CRM and vendor data cleansing, deduplication, and consistent reporting. That gives an agent a solid sense of when to reach for it, but there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives for overlapping tasks like matching or verification.

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