Search for existing Blocks keys (dedup check)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that no login is required (public endpoint), details the two distinct matching methods (exact KeyName and case-insensitive trimmed English text), explains the scope (target module + BLOCKS_DEDUP_MODULES), and notes how to widen it. This is rich contextual information beyond simple 'searches for keys'.

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 dense but well-organized, starting with the core purpose and then expanding with numbered checks, an illustrative example, and scope details. It is longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes useful information, so it earns a 4 rather than 3.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, nested object array, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavior, use case, authentication, and parameter intent. It does not describe the return format or match result structure, which prevents a 5, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 67%, with descriptions for targetModuleName, extraModuleNames, and englishText. The description adds value by explicitly tying targetModuleName to 'module being worked on', explaining extraModuleNames as a widening mechanism, and defining the matching semantics (trimmed, case-insensitive) that affect how the keys array is interpreted. This supplements the schema rather than repeating it.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Checks each key two ways before you upload it', immediately identifying it as a dedup-check tool for existing Blocks keys. The title and description together distinguish it from sibling tools like find_keys by emphasizing pre-upload duplicate detection.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('before you upload it') and why ('so you reuse the existing key instead of creating a duplicate string'). It also explains how to broaden scope with extraModuleNames. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like find_keys, leaving some room for interpretation.

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