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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it's AI-powered, generates a similarity key (not a match decision), and discloses the cost ($0.01 USDC via x402), which is valuable operational information beyond the 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?

Three sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope clarification and cost disclosure. The cost sentence is arguably extra but earns its place as operational context.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, scope, and cost. It doesn't describe the return format, but with no output schema and a simple key-generation task, this is a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that the 'product' parameter can be a name, description, or model, which aligns with the schema's description. It doesn't add detail about the 'algorithm' parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('similarity key for product name matching'), and clarifies it handles variations in product names, model numbers, and descriptions. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the product-specific focus is clear enough among the many Interzoid siblings.

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 implies usage for product name matching and mentions the optional algorithm variant, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like interzoid_company_match_advanced or interzoid_org_match_score. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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