dedup_and_lint_dossier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond structured data: failures surface via an 'ok' flag rather than an error, triggered by duplicates, invalid URLs, or lint violations. However, it never says whether the tool mutates any stored dossier or is purely a read/compute operation, nor whether duplicate detection is order-sensitive or per-host.

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 short sentences with the two capabilities front-loaded and the failure condition last; no filler. The 'and/or' phrasing is slightly muddy but compactness is good.

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 small two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the failure signal but leaves gaps: it never says what a successful response contains (canonicalized URL list? lint finding details?) or what the referenced 'dossier schema' is. That reference is the most important unexplained term in the definition.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, and the description only restates that urls are canonicalized/deduplicated and markdown is linted. It adds no format details, such as expected URL scheme or how the markdown is validated against the 'dossier schema'.

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 names specific verbs (canonicalize, deduplicate, lint) against specific resources (URLs, a markdown dossier), and the 'and/or' makes clear it is two modes in one tool. The sibling tools (route_agent_seat, evaluate_agent_response) are unrelated operations, so no differentiation is needed.

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 only implied by the parameter split: pass 'urls' to dedupe, 'markdown' to lint, or both. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus doing the work inline, no mention of prerequisites, and no guidance on what happens if neither parameter is supplied (both are optional).

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