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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the algorithm type, the one-text vs two-text behavior, detection of paraphrased/edited copies, and the expected baseline score for unrelated texts. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core algorithm and usage modes are front-loaded, and every clause contributes useful information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and the expected score behavior. It stops short of specifying exact output formatting (e.g., hash encoding or score range), but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the description largely restates the schema's guidance about 1 or 2 texts and the 200,000-character limit. It adds algorithmic context but no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific operation ('near-duplicate detection') and a concrete mechanism (64-bit SimHash over word shingles), then defines the two call modes. This clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling utilities.

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 clearly states when to use the tool: send one text for a hash or two texts for comparison. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all unrelated, so the intended context is clear.

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