check_originality

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, the description goes beyond this by disclosing specific behavioral traits: case- and accent-insensitive matching, return of overlap percentage and shared passages, fully offline processing, and a non-accusatory stance. These details provide useful context that annotations alone would not convey.

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 three sentences long, each earning its place: the first defines the action and gives examples, the second details output and sensitivity, and the third clarifies scope and philosophy. There is zero filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, return values (overlap percentage and shared passages), limitations (not internet-indexed, offline), and intended usage context. An agent would have all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for the sole 'documents' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the documents are compared against each other, but it does not add specific format or usage details beyond what the schema already states, so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compares') and resource ('documents AGAINST EACH OTHER') to clearly define the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from internet-wide plagiarism tools like Turnitin and from sibling tools by emphasizing pairwise document comparison, ensuring no confusion with tools like compare_to_baseline or check_citations.

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 states when to use this tool—comparing a closed set of documents against each other—and provides concrete use cases (student submissions, draft vs sources). It also explicitly excludes a major alternative ('NOT a whole-internet index like Turnitin') and notes the tool operates offline, giving clear contextual guidance.

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