match_endpoint_v1_enrich_match_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function and the cost, but does not disclose what the response looks like (e.g., whether it returns just the matched string, a score, or null if no match reaches min_score), nor does it note any error behavior or side effects. For a POST endpoint with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the cost note is a useful practical detail. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description is responsible for explaining return values and failure modes. It only says 'Finds the most similar string' without specifying the exact return format, what happens if no choice meets the min_score, or any error conditions. Given the low complexity and no annotations, the description leaves essential operational details unspecified.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters (value, choices, min_score) with clear descriptions and examples. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 purpose: 'Finds the most similar string from a list of choices' – a specific verb and resource. It also mentions the method ('fuzzy matching algorithms'), which distinctively separates it from sibling enrichment tools that handle names, addresses, or legal data. The purpose is unambiguous and easily distinguishable.

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 gives a clear context for when to use this tool (when you need fuzzy string matching against a list). However, it does not explicitly mention any alternative tools or conditions when not to use it. The cost note ('1 credit per request') implies it should be used when needed, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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