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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it declares read-only, deterministic behavior ("the same two names always give the same scores"), enumerates the returned JSON fields including the 0-1 scale of the confusion score, and states the analytical limits. These are exactly the traits a caller needs for a scoring tool with no structured 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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, behavior/return shape, when-to-use routing, and exclusions. The key facts are front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description lists the return fields and their scale, so an agent knows what comes back. For a two-parameter, read-only comparison tool, nothing needed to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, with both parameters documented and exemplified (NOVABREW vs NOVABRU), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the two inputs are "names"; it does not clarify edge cases such as casing, whitespace, or length differences beyond what the schema examples imply.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Compare two specific names side-by-side," and immediately names what is returned (visual, Jaro-Winkler, phonetic, confusion score, risk level). It explicitly differentiates itself from screen_trademark, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without inspecting schemas.

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?

States the selection condition directly: use this when you already have two names in mind, and use screen_trademark to discover conflicts across the register. It adds the reason for that routing (screen_trademark weighs classes and live/dead status) and closes with exclusions — no meaning, commercial impression, or class relatedness.

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