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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so 'Merges nothing' largely restates structured data. However, 'a pair a member ignored is never raised again' adds genuine state behavior not present in annotations — that suppression is persistent across future scans. Nothing is said about cost, duration, or how many pairs a scan may create.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the non-merge/no-re-raise guarantees follow immediately as qualifiers.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain return values. It reveals the key side effect (queue entries) and its persistence rule; only gaps are scan scope/cost and what 'raise' concretely creates, which is minor for a single-parameter 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%, so the single companyId parameter is documented, but only as a thin 'UUID value wrapper' that never explains it scopes which company's network is scanned. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 scope ('Scan the network') plus the concrete outcome ('raise each pair in the dedup queue with its evidence'), which separates it from read-only siblings like fundraising_list_network_duplicates. It stops short of naming a sibling or explicitly contrasting itself with fundraising_recommend_network_duplicate, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool that populates the dedup queue, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, use Y instead' guidance. No prerequisites, no statement about when a scan is warranted versus listing existing duplicates.

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