match_businesses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' IDs, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The mention of 'in bulk' and 'max 50 items' hints at constraints, but overall transparency is minimal.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence main purpose followed by bulleted usage guidelines. Every sentence is necessary and non-redundant. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 single parameter array, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description covers everything needed: purpose, when to use, when not to use, and the next appropriate tool. It mentions the output (Explorium business IDs) and the bulk limit (max 50). No gaps remain for typical usage.

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 0% per context, but the description adds guidance: 'Provide one or more identifiers to enhance matching accuracy. Use both name and domain when available.' This adds meaning beyond the property names and types. However, it does not elaborate on format or validation, so it's adequate but not exceptional.

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 it retrieves Explorium business IDs from business name and/or domain in bulk. The verb 'Get' and resource 'business IDs' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_businesses (which may return full data) and enrich_* tools by focusing on ID matching.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (need company size/revenue/industry, analyzing metrics, researching background) and when-not-to-use (looking for specific employees, exec info, when fetch_businesses was already called). It also recommends next step after using this tool (fetch_prospects). This is excellent guidance for an AI agent.

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