公司名对碰

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the fuzzy matching logic, result tiers, and output fields (name_score, day_gap, summary). Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) are consistent and not contradicted.

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 extremely concise, using a short paragraph and bullet points to convey the matching logic, three result tiers, and output fields. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of a detailed input schema, the description effectively covers the tool's purpose, matching logic, result categories, and output structure, leaving no significant gaps.

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 100%, so the tool description does not need to repeat parameter details. It focuses on overall behavior rather than individual parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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 reconciles two tables by fuzzy matching on company name and date with AND logic. It specifies three result tiers (matched, to_review, unmatched) and the output fields. No sibling differentiation needed.

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 clear context about the matching logic and result categories, implying the tool is for reconciling company tables. Without siblings, it adequately guides usage, though explicit when-to-use scenarios could be added.

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