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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the return contents (score 0-1, verdict, core names compared, transliteration variants) and the billing model ('1 credit per call', with misses, errors and unevidenced answers free). This is exactly the operational context an agent needs and cannot infer from structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core decision and scoping, then routing, then the caveat, then cost. No sentence is filler; each adds a distinct fact.

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 takes on the return-value burden and does so (score, verdict, compared core names, transliteration variants). Annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile and the description adds cost and cross-language caveats, leaving no significant gap for calling the tool correctly.

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% and both parameters are documented as 'Arabic or English', so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds context about legal-form handling but no per-parameter format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Decides whether two company names refer to the same name across Arabic and English spellings') with explicit scope including legal forms like LLC and شركة. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling apione_name_normalize, which is named as the single-name alternative.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('Use to dedupe or join company lists in GCC and MENA data'), names the alternative for a different task ('To clean one name, use apione_name_normalize'), and states a boundary condition ('It compares names, not entities, so confirm with the domain before merging records').

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