copy_audit

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

The description details the algorithm (normalized token overlap, Jaccard score) and clarifies it is a cheap, deterministic screen, not for semantic paraphrases. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by algorithmic details and usage notes. It is informative but slightly verbose; could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, algorithm, scope, and usage guidance. An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description is complete for an effective tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains campaign_id and ad_group_id as scope narrowers but does not explicitly describe similarity_threshold, though the algorithm context implies its use. This partial coverage results in an adequate but not excellent score.

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 finds near-identical ad copy and length issues, and returns all copy in scope. It uses specific verbs and nouns, making the purpose 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?

The description explains when to use the tool (for mechanical near-duplicates) and when not to (for semantic dedup, reason over output yourself). It also mentions scope narrowing with campaign_id or ad_group_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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