Match names (probabilistic)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by stating the operation is a pure, deterministic string calculation that tolerates typographical variation and legal suffix abbreviations, which explains behavior annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, then cleanly grouped under Purpose / When to use / When NOT to use / Behavioral transparency headers. Slightly over-structured for a three-parameter tool, and the transparency line partly restates annotations, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Covers purpose, positive usage, negative usage with alternatives, and behavioral character. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the remaining gaps are negligible for a deterministic two-string comparison 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% and all three parameters carry descriptions, so this is the baseline case. The description adds meaningful context about what the computed similarity represents and what variations it tolerates, but adds nothing about the threshold parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Score two counterparty names using Jaro-Winkler string similarity') and pins down what the score means ([0, 1]). It explicitly names the siblings it is not (reconcile, explain_match), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use cases (verifying same party, evaluating matching thresholds) and explicit when-NOT-to-use cases naming the alternative tools for multi-signal matching. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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