find_duplicate_orders_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the behavior: finds all orders under the name, identifies duplicates based on same drink/spec/add-ons, and shows duplicate count and timestamps. It implies read-only via '搜尋' and '找出', though it does not explicitly state no modifications occur.

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 well-structured with an emoji-led summary, trigger examples, parameter explanation, and a function list. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the purpose, though the trigger examples and function list add some length. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the operation logic, duplicate matching criteria, and output elements. It lacks explicit alternative tool mentions, but overall the description is complete for its complexity.

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 schema only defines 'name' as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by stating 'name: 要查詢的人名', giving meaning and context to the parameter. It does not mention input format nuances like exact matching, but it sufficiently explains the purpose.

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 it searches for duplicate order data of a specific person using the verb '搜尋' (search) and the resource '特定人物的重複訂單資料'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_all_duplicates by scoping to a specific person, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 trigger scenarios in Chinese: '當使用者詢問「搜尋個人有重複的資料」、「某人有重複訂單」時，請呼叫此工具'. This tells when to use the tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like search_all_duplicates.

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