check_duplicate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks for duplicates but does not specify the return type, whether it is read-only, error conditions, or case sensitivity of memo prefix matching. This lack of detail limits the agent's understanding of side effects and behavior.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose and criteria, then provide a clear usage directive. Every sentence adds value without 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?

For a simple check tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, matching criteria, and usage timing. However, it omits information about the return value (e.g., boolean or details) and does not mention potential errors or edge cases, leaving some incompleteness.

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?

The input schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning by specifying that memo is matched by prefix and that the combination of date, amount, and memo is used for duplicate detection. This provides crucial semantic context beyond the raw schema definition.

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 clearly states the tool checks for duplicate transactions by date, amount, and memo prefix, with explicit matching criteria. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on duplicate detection, and the phrase 'Use BEFORE register' adds context.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use BEFORE register to prevent double-posting.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like check_exclusion or classify_transaction.

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