Find Duplicates

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the scope that only top-level items are considered and that matching is performed on three specific fields, which is useful context beyond the structured 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?

The description is a single sentence of twelve words, front-loading the verb and core concept. No filler or redundant detail; every word contributes to specifying the tool's function.

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?

The tool has only two parameters, both optional, and benefits from rich annotations (read-only, idempotent) and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the key functional scope, though it omits a definition of 'normalized title' and what 'limit' applies to, making it slightly incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with domain conventions.

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 schema provides zero descriptions for `field` and `limit` (0% coverage). The description compensates partially by naming the three valid match criteria (DOI, ISBN, normalized title), but it does not explicitly tie these to the `field` parameter or clarify what `limit` constrains. Thus the description adds value but leaves some ambiguity.

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 action ('Find'), the target resource ('duplicate top-level items'), and the method ('by DOI, ISBN, or normalized title'). This uniquely distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which mention duplicate detection.

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 is for detecting duplicates but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like search_library or verify_items. It doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer usage from the tool's name and description.

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