search_all_duplicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior—scanning all orders, identifying duplicates, and showing count statistics—which implies a read-only analysis. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention performance, permissions, or limitations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The trigger phrases are useful for usage guidance. The bullet list slightly repeats the first sentence but remains concise and scannable, so no significant waste.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the operation is a simple global scan, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and what output to expect (duplicate count statistics). Minor gaps include lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but overall it is complete enough for a no-argument scan tool.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters; the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description contradicts or requires additional parameter semantics.

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 scans all orders and finds all people with duplicate orders (掃描全部訂單，找出所有有重複訂單的人物). It uses a specific verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes itself from sibling find_duplicate_orders_by_name by emphasizing the global '全部' and '全局搜尋重複' scope.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call it: when the user asks for global duplicate search or who has duplicate orders (「全局搜尋重複」、「誰有重複訂單」). It provides clear context and trigger phrases, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like find_duplicate_orders_by_name.

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