check_duplicate

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 genuinely useful context beyond them: that the downstream write is rate-limited and that this check exists to avoid a 409, which tells the agent why the read is cheap.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and its outcome, then appends the motivating rationale. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description only loosely implies the return shape ('whether a tool is already listed or awaiting review'). It could say what the response conveys when both url and name are provided, but for a 2-param read tool with full annotation coverage it is largely sufficient.

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% and both url/name are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics about how url and name interact or whether either alone suffices, despite both being optional.

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 (check) and resource (tool already listed or awaiting review), and pins it to the endpoint GET /api/agent/check. An agent can immediately distinguish it from submit_tool or get_submission.

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?

Gives clear context: call this 'before submitting' to avoid a rate-limited write returning 409. It names the sibling action (submitting) and the failure it prevents, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name submit_tool by name.

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