record_discovery_candidate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It meaningfully discloses that the tool does not modify the watchlist and that the recorded item is deduplicated and queued for human review. However, it does not explain duplicate-handling behavior, whether it is idempotent, or what happens after a candidate is recorded.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core action, purpose, deduplication behavior, and the important exclusion from the watchlist. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of 15 parameters, 7 required fields, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, this brief description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently construct a valid call. It orients the agent but leaves too many required fields and expected behaviors unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for only one parameter implicitly ('official measure URL' maps to official_status_url) and does not clarify the remaining 14 parameters, many of which are required and lack property descriptions in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('record'), a specific resource ('a deduplicated candidate'), and states the purpose ('for human review'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from watchlist-related tools by noting it does not add the candidate to the watchlist.

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 implies this tool is for capturing candidate items that need human review rather than directly entering the watchlist, which gives useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as review_candidate, record_measure_observation, or import_normalized_watchlist.

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