unblock_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns pre-verified variants, sorted descending by score, and warns that missing class scope leads to ambiguously-scoped variants. It also mentions the return structure. However, it doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only or note any side effects, though the tool seems non-destructive by nature.

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 clear sections: main action, use-when bullets, don't-use exclusion, input notes, and returns. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains focused.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a thorough picture: it explains when to use, how it relates to verify_brand_name, what inputs are needed and why, and what the output looks like. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by linking parameters to the verify_brand_name context ('the same business_description or nice_classes you used') and highlighting the consequence of omitting them ('Without the class scope, this returns ambiguously-scoped variants'). This enriches parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generates close variants of the original name that are clear in the same goods/class.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Don't use for unrelated name generation' and pointing to verify_brand_name as the prerequisite. This is a precise purpose statement.

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 explicitly states when to use (after verify_brand_name returns ABANDON) and when not to use ('Don't use for unrelated name generation... call verify_brand_name on each candidate instead'). The 'Use when' bullets give concrete triggers. This is exemplary usage guidance with alternatives.

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