report_duplicate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'API token required,' which is a useful authorization note, but it does not clarify whether the report is queued for review, takes immediate effect, is reversible, or what outcome the caller should expect. For a mutation-like action, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose immediately, and includes the essential token prerequisite. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

This is a sparse tool definition with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, the workflow around duplicate reporting, or how this differs operationally from resolve_duplicate and merge_duplicate. The schema covers parameter semantics, but an agent is missing enough context to confidently choose and invoke this tool in the right situation.

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 three parameters are already fully described in the input schema, with place_id and duplicate_of having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general 'report a place as a duplicate' framing, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('a place') with a clear intent ('as a duplicate'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_duplicates, resolve_duplicate, and merge_duplicate, which deal with listing, resolving, or merging rather than reporting.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the nearby duplicate-management siblings. The only extra note is 'API token required,' which is a prerequisite, not usage direction. No alternatives, exclusions, or recommended conditions are given.

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