Check Duplicate Publication

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it cross-references title+abstract against six sources, returns specific fields (status, confidence, message), takes ~30 seconds, and is free. No destructive actions implied, and no contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and sources, the second provides output and usage advice. Front-loaded with key 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description completely covers purpose, input significance, sources, timing, cost, return format, and usage context. No gaps identified.

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?

Parameter schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that abstract improves match accuracy and DOI is optional, going beyond the schema's basic field definitions.

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's purpose: a pre-submission duplicate-publication check. It specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'duplicate publication', and distinguishes it from siblings like find_research_gaps or hakem_review_paper by focusing on cross-referencing against multiple databases.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before submission to catch accidental duplicates or to confirm a preprint hasn't been formally published yet.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tools do not overlap significantly.

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