find_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses output character ('No bodies,' names/URLs only) and an epistemic caveat that matches are not proof of identity, but says nothing about pagination behavior, permissions, cost, or side effects.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The clipped style ('No bodies.') is efficient, though the final fragment is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous on first read.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover more ground than it does. It partially describes the response (names and URLs, no bodies) but omits pagination guidance for the limit/offset parameters and gives no sense of result ordering or match quality.

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%, so the schema documents no parameters. The description conveys that the required id targets 'one entry,' but limit and offset are entirely unexplained (page size vs. offset semantics), and the id's expected format is left to the regex alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest possible duplicates or related titles for one entry,' which clearly separates it from siblings like get_entry, merge_entries, and search. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the dedupe-suggestion intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one entry' and the caveat that results are 'evidence for review,' suggesting a human-in-the-loop dedupe workflow. However, it never says when to call this versus search, retrieve, or merge_entries, nor what preconditions the entry must meet.

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