find_content_overlap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that results are only 'potentially' overlapping and require editorial review, which is useful. But it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies anything, or what the output format looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates action, resource, method, and a critical caveat efficiently.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain more than it does. It omits parameter semantics, return value shape, and ranking details, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly beyond the basic intent.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for either 'slug' or 'limit'. Readers are left to guess what slug refers to and exactly how limit affects ranking. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Rank') and a clear resource ('potentially overlapping archived content'), and adds the distinctive method ('disclosed lexical overlap'). This distinguishes it from sibling search and record tools without needing to open 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?

The phrase 'requires editorial review' implies this tool produces candidate results that need human judgment, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like find_content_record or compare_payload_to_live_state, nor when not to use it.

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