find_dupes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by specifying the matching mechanism ('distinctive-note overlap') and the output format ('similarity ranking'). This goes beyond the bare function, though it could be more explicit about limitations or data coverage.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately explain the return type. There is no unnecessary verbiage; every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it finds, the method, and the ranking behavior. However, since there is no output schema, it leaves some ambiguity about the exact structure of 'matches' (e.g., whether it returns fragrance slugs, names, scores). Still, it is sufficiently informative for an agent to rely on.

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 input schema already provides full coverage of the single parameter (slug) with an example. The description does not add additional meaning beyond referring to the fragrance as 'a given one,' which is redundant. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does all necessary work.

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's function: find fragrances that smell similar to a given one, using a specific method (distinctive-note overlap). This is a specific verb+resource+method that distinguishes it from the sibling tools (search_fragrance, fragrance_info).

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 implies when to use the tool (when the user wants similar fragrances to a known one) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not say 'use search_fragrance for general search' or 'use fragrance_info for details,' so the guidance is purely contextual without direct sibling differentiation.

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