Score People Duplicates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning the $0.05 cost and API key requirement, which are important for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool. It does not contradict the read-only/destructive hints.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential cost/auth details without padding. Every element earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately scannable. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

The description is adequate for understanding the tool's role and the fact that it is a non-destructive, paid, API-key-gated scoring step. However, it leaves limit and min_probability unexplained, which is a real gap given the sparse schema coverage. The output schema and annotations soften the omission, but parameter behavior is still under-specified.

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 only 33%; only person_id has a description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining limit or min_probability, leaving their semantics undocumented. The phrase 'score likely CRM duplicate pairs' adds no specific parameter meaning, so the description falls short on parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('score'), a clear resource ('likely CRM duplicate pairs'), and a sequencing relationship ('before merge_people'). This distinguishes it from merge_people and makes the tool's role immediately understandable. The title reinforces the same purpose without adding ambiguity.

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 phrase 'before merge_people' provides clear workflow context, indicating this tool is a pre-merge step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended placement in the duplicate-handling flow is clear. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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