Check internal near-duplicate content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the fetching behavior (reads pages) and the word-shingle similarity method. However, it doesn't disclose return format details, pagination, rate-limit behavior, or what happens when no duplicates are found. With solid annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences total, front-loaded with action verb and scope, zero filler. The description efficiently conveys purpose, operational bounds, methodology, and interpretation of results in under 25 words.

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 read-only analysis tool with 100% schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema (so return values aren't separately documented), the description appropriately covers purpose, scope, method, and result interpretation. The only minor gap is not elaborating on the output format, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (urls with min/max count and format, similarity_threshold with range and default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds the threshold concept ('flag a pair') which reinforces but doesn't extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('fetch... flag highly similar article bodies'), the specific resource (2-30 public pages), the method (word-shingle similarity), and the scope (internal near-duplicate content). It also explicitly distinguishes its output nature (review signals, not canonicalization decisions), which differentiates it from sibling tools like aeo_compare_pages.

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 gives clear operational parameters (fetch 2 to 30 public pages) and clarifies what the results should be used for (review signals, not decisions). While it implies the tool is for internal duplicate detection, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the context of internal duplicate checking is clear enough.

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