Business Name Analysis

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about input handling: 'No local validation on name or date' and that non-letters are stripped, which informs the agent about what the tool does with edge-case inputs.

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 well-structured with sections for WORKFLOW, INPUT CONTRACT, and DO NOT CONFUSE WITH. Each sentence serves a purpose, avoiding fluff while including necessary disambiguations and a link to the full contract.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 2 required, one enum), the description provides sufficient high-level behavior, workflow, and distinctions from siblings. It references a full contract for deeper details, and the output schema covers structured return data, so no critical information 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (date, business_name, response_format) having a descriptive description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: reducing a business name to Expression and root digits against a founder birth date, returning suitability lists and a harmony score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying 'business' and 'brand', and contrasts with personal name correction and mobile number analysis.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: standalone with no BEFORE step and an AFTER recommendation to use asterwise_get_name_correction for persons. It also includes a DO NOT CONFUSE WITH section that names alternative tools and their scopes, making it obvious when to use this tool versus others.

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