list_duplicate_candidates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each pair comes with an example mention, a small behavioral detail, but says nothing about scoring, confidence, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the resource. It is appropriately sized, though it carries almost no additional information beyond the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a discovery tool that feeds merge/resolve siblings, the missing usage guidance and parameter explanation leave the definition merely adequate.

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 only 67% (limit is undocumented), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It never explains that run_id scopes results to a search run or that project may be omitted in single-project setups, leaving the two most consequential filters under-explained.

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 ('List') and resource ('entity pairs that may be the same thing'), which is clearly the duplicate-candidate detection concept. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling resolve_duplicates or merge_entities, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus resolve_duplicates or merge_entities, no mention of prerequisites or workflow position. The agent must infer that this is a discovery step feeding the resolution tools.

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