Find possible duplicate reports

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavior: result cap of 10, exclusion of out-of-scope/not-applicable reports, access restriction to opted-in organisations the user belongs to, and the caveat that candidates are hints rather than definitive duplicates. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the result and limits, the second explains the organisation-side access restriction, and the third gives the essential hint-vs-confirmation caveat. The most important information is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition of the 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?

The description is complete for a 3-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema already present. It covers result limits, exclusions, permissions, and the expected follow-up action, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret its results appropriately.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that title and description drive the similarity check, and that programme selection is constrained by the user's organisation opt-in status. This is meaningful supplemental context beyond the parameter names and types.

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 title and description combine to clearly state a specific operation: finding existing reports on a programme that may duplicate a given finding based on title and description similarity. It is distinct from generic search or report-fetching siblings because it explicitly frames the result as duplicate candidates for a specific finding.

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 gives clear context: use it to detect potential duplicate reports before marking anything DUPLICATE, and it explicitly points to get_org_report as the follow-up comparison tool. It does not spell out when not to use it versus other search/list siblings, but the matching purpose and the access constraint make intended usage reasonably clear.

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