Find duplicates

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

The description confirms read-only behavior ('Read-only — never merges'), consistent with annotations. It adds mode-specific behavior but doesn't disclose return format or pagination. Annotations already signal safety, so the description adds moderate value.

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 with no wasted words. All information is relevant and front-loaded: purpose first, then modes and safety.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core modes and safety. It lacks details on 'limit' and 'cursor', but these are secondary. Overall sufficient for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'mode' thoroughly and mentions 'ids/query subset' for grouping, but omits 'limit', 'cursor', and detailed handling of 'ids' (integer vs string). Partial coverage.

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 'Find probable duplicate books' and explains three modes (identical, similar, compare), distinguishing the tool's purpose from siblings like calibre_search or calibre_get_book.

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 describes when to use each mode (e.g., exact vs fuzzy merging, compare diffs) and states 'never merges', implying safety. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives.

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