qc_duplicate_records

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and input expectations. It only says 'Flag,' which suggests analysis but does not state whether data is modified, that a Tabular export must be supplied, or how findings are returned. The x_suso_qc schema block fills some of this metadata, but the description itself is too thin to be fully transparent.

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 leads with the action and scopes the tool precisely. The leading 'qc_duplicate_records:' prefix merely repeats the tool name and the word 'duplicate' occurs twice, but otherwise there is 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?

The x_suso_qc metadata compensates with methodology, output contract, exclusions, required export type, and minimum data requirements, so the description does not need to re-explain those. Still, with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, an agent relying on the description alone would lack enough context to assemble a correct call; only the schema metadata fills the gaps.

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 50% and the description adds meaning mainly to `variables` via 'user-supplied identifying variables.' It does not clarify `plan`, `profile`, `confirm_plan_id`, `questionnaire_identity`, or the relationship between `rules`, `thresholds`, and the duplicate logic, leaving half the parameters semantically opaque.

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 action ('Flag') and object ('duplicate interview IDs or duplicate combinations of user-supplied identifying variables'). The two input modes delineate what counts as a duplicate, distinguishing this QC tool from export and other QC siblings. The name prefix is redundant but does not obscure the meaning.

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 the tool is for duplicate-detection QC work, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings such as qc_gps_duplicates_and_clusters or how it relates to other qc_* tools. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name and generic QC context.

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