checkDuplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose the return format (e.g., boolean), OR/AND semantics when both parameters are provided, or edge-case behavior such as case sensitivity or multiple matches.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every part contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the lack of any output schema or return-type explanation leaves a significant gap. The description does not specify what 'check' returns, nor does it cover parameter combination rules, so the agent is left uncertain about invocation results.

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 schema already explains both parameters. The description adds an 'or' implication, but does not clarify whether at least one parameter is required or how combining them behaves, staying at the baseline.

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 the tool checks for existing persons by email or phone, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like getPersonByEmail by focusing on the existence check rather than retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPersonByEmail or searchPeopleByTag. The description only states the function, without exclusions, prerequisites, or context.

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