listDupCandidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: results are advisory-only ('need human review'), auto-merged pairs are filtered out, and the source is a post-consume sweep. It leaves unstated that the operation is read-only, whether the list is paginated or how fresh it is, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary scope and followed by the exclusions and next action. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

A simple 0-param read whose return values are covered by the output schema, so the description only needs scope and follow-up — both present. Minor gap: no statement of read-only safety or whether an empty list is a normal outcome, which matters given the absent annotations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline for a 0-param tool applies; no param text is needed.

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?

Specific verb + resource with full scope: 'List entity pairs the post-consume dedup sweep flagged as likely cross-device duplicates.' It even carves out what is excluded (auto-merged strong-identifier pairs), so an agent can distinguish this from mergeEntities or listInsights without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent forward: 'Call mergeEntities on a pair to consolidate' and names an alternative surface ('maz review dups for the interactive CLI view'). It does not state a when-not-to-use condition (e.g., after a full merge pass), but the follow-up path is unambiguous.

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