list_potential_duplicates

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is a 'Read-only fuzzy post-hoc detector; never auto-merges' and describes its dependency on schema settings. However, it omits potential edge cases like what happens when no duplicates are found.

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 with no waste. Each sentence serves a purpose: function, usage context, and follow-up action. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a list tool without an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the input parameters and the workflow. However, it does not describe the return format or structure of duplicate pairs, which might require additional inference.

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?

All 4 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that threshold defaults come from schema settings and can be overridden, and that entity_type is the required parameter, which is already in schema but reinforced.

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 explicitly states 'List candidate duplicate entity pairs for an entity_type' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like merge_entities by stating it is read-only and never auto-merges.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Confirm pairs with the user, then hand off to merge_entities.' It also explains when to use per-schema thresholds and that callers can override the threshold, giving explicit context for decision-making.

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