Compare two names for payment reconciliation (入金消込)

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important matching behavior: abbreviations, spaces, punctuation, small/large kana, and width are ignored. It also lists return fields and mentions entity_type_differs with an example, though it does not discuss limitations such as false positives or ordering constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core decision task and then lists relevant return fields. It is compact and mostly free of waste, though the return-field list is dense and somewhat schema-like.

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?

For a two-string matching tool with no output schema, the description covers the matching rules, intended reconciliation context, and return fields. The main remaining gaps are explicit parameter mapping and guidance on sibling tools.

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%, and the description does not explicitly map parameters a and b to the payer name and customer name. It does describe the two conceptual name types and normalization semantics, which helps infer meaning, but the parameter mapping remains implicit.

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 states a specific verb and decision task: deciding whether two names are the same for payment reconciliation. It clearly describes the compared resources as a bank-statement payer name and a customer kana name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling format/check tools by name.

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 gives a clear context for use: matching a bank statement payer name against a customer name for payment reconciliation. It does not explicitly state when to use this instead of zengin_name_format or zengin_name_check, nor does it provide exclusions.

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