gate402_dedup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: exact-match plus cosine similarity threshold (0.88), sub-10ms speed, and pay-per-call pricing. It does not mention potential side effects like cache mutation (though the storeOnMiss parameter suggests optional storage), but overall adds significant value beyond a generic description.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and key details. Every sentence adds value, with no superfluous information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It states 'Returns a cache hit/miss for a query' but does not specify the exact format or fields. Given the four parameters, the description could mention optional parameters like vector, namespace, and storeOnMiss. The cost information is helpful, but the description feels slightly incomplete for a production 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Each parameter is adequately described in the schema, and the description does not elaborate on their usage or interactions.

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 purpose: a semantic vector-cache lookup using exact-match then 0.88 cosine similarity. It specifies the verb (lookup), resource (cache), and key details (speed, cost). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gate402_scrape or gate402_token_count.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling comparisons. The cost information is useful but does not constitute explicit usage guidance.

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