find_duplicate_contests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature, case/punctuation/word-order normalization, the LIVE-only scope, and the nuance of same-source exact-title duplicates and their shadowing effect. This goes well beyond the minimum and gives the agent a detailed behavioral model.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, while the second adds essential context about the duplicate gate and same-source shadowing without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 single-parameter read-only audit tool, this description is comprehensive: it explains what it does, how matching works, the scope (LIVE only), and edge-case behavior (same-source shadowing). The output schema handles return structure, and the description adds necessary business context, making it complete.

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 only parameter, min_live, is fully documented in the input schema with a description, default value, and the archived-ignored behavior. The description itself does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 opens with 'Read-only audit: find groups of LIVE contests that share the same normalized title', which clearly specifies the verb (find), resource (LIVE contests), and matching rule (normalized title). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on duplicate titles, a concept not present in any sibling name.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by explaining these are records the duplicate-title gate would block on ingestion, and it also clarifies that same-source exact-title duplicates are included with an explanation of shadowing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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