find_duplicate_transactions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the strict all-fields-must-match rule and the 'unresolved' bucket for partial matches, which an agent would otherwise not know.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the matching key and followed by the failure-mode caveat. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with a required 'resource' parameter carrying no definition at 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves a real gap an agent must guess at before invoking.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the three parameters (resource, from_date, to_date) are undocumented in both schema and description. 'Date' appears in the matching key, hinting from/to_date scope a transaction set, but the required 'resource' parameter — its accepted values or meaning — is left entirely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('duplicate detector') and defines the exact matching key: Customer/Supplier + Reference + Date + total + line signature. This is far more specific than sibling list/find tools and immediately distinguishes it from find_records and find_broken_invoice_references.

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?

It clarifies the boundary condition that partial matches are returned as 'unresolved' and never flagged as duplicates, which implies usage. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over find_records or what preconditions (e.g., data already imported) apply.

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