find_duplicate_observations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'report-only,' implying no side effects, and mentions the exact matching tier (SHA-256). However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, performance expectations, or error scenarios. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two sentences: one specifying the version and core functionality, another noting complementarity and report-only nature. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 simple find-duplicates tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (exact matching, cross-entity, report-only). While it doesn't describe the output format, the tool's name and purpose make the return type (groups of duplicate observation strings) predictable.

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 100% with all 5 parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool finds verbatim duplicate observation strings across distinct entities, using SHA-256 exact matching. It distinguishes itself from MemoryEngine.checkDuplicate (turn-level) and CompressionManager.findDuplicates (whole-entity), which clarifies its unique role.

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 mentions it's complementary to two sibling tools, giving context on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide detailed handling of parameterized filters.

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