match_dedupe

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses the deduplication algorithm in detail: SHA-256 blocking, token_set_ratio threshold, date window, and selection rule. This provides strong transparency. However, it does not clarify what 'most-complete' means operationally or mention any non-obvious behaviors.

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: one sentence for the high-level purpose, then one sentence detailing the algorithm. The key information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the algorithm well. Minor gaps: no guidance on edge cases (e.g., empty input, all dates absent) or definition of 'most-complete.' Still, it is reasonably complete for a technical 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?

The input schema describes the 'jobs' parameter with 100% coverage (each field has a description). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Remove duplicate job postings from a list.' This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like match_score or source_* which perform different functions. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 implies the tool should be used after collecting job postings from multiple sources, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use it. No alternatives are mentioned. The guideline is merely implied by the tool's function, not stated.

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