check_prospect_dedup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' (implying no side effects) and describes the output structure and the reason field. However, it does not disclose error handling, normalization behavior, or constraints like max candidates (though that is in the schema).

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 concise, using a single sentence with clear structure. It packs crucial information: read-only nature, output format, and relationship to add_prospects, with zero waste.

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, the description adequately describes the return structure. It also covers the dedup logic and key behaviors. However, it does not specify error cases or rate limits, but that is mitigated by the straightforward nature of a pre-check tool and the schema's coverage.

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 documents both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the effect of omitting projectId (tenant-scope only, no project-link check) and mentions normalization server-side for organizationDomain, which complements the schema. This goes beyond 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's purpose: a read-only duplicate pre-check that returns decisions in input order with kind ('fresh' or 'skip'). It specifies the exact output structure and explicitly mentions the dedup subset, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_prospects and skip_prospect.

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?

It clearly indicates this is a pre-check tool (read-only) and references the dedup subset of add_prospects, which suggests when to use it (before adding prospects). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the reference to add_prospects.

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