bokio_find_duplicates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that, namely the annulled-verification skip rule and the ledger sign convention (debit positive, credit negative) that determines what 'same amount' means. It does not say whether duplicates come back grouped or flat, or in what order — a small remaining gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core detection criterion, followed by the exclusion rule/alternative routing, then the sign convention. Every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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?

A read-only, five-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema — so return shape needn't be described. The description covers detection logic, exclusions, sign convention, and the neighboring alternative, leaving nothing an agent would need to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by defining the matching semantics of windowDays ('within windowDays of each other') and by clarifying the ledger sign convention that governs the amount comparison, neither of which the schema states. It does not add anything for companyId or account beyond the schema's own text.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and a precisely defined resource (possible double bookings), then spells out the exact matching criterion: same account and amount from different verifications within windowDays. The scope (SIE export) and the sibling it is not (bokio_reconcile_bank) are both named, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'to check against a bank statement use bokio_reconcile_bank', which names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also states the exclusion rule ('Annulled verifications are skipped'), so the agent knows what is silently omitted from results.

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