find_overlap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool is deterministic + heuristic, surfaces likely duplicates for human confirmation, does not advise or rank, can miss overlaps, and explains document selection logic (general conditions over IPID, newest edition). This is rich, honest behavioral context.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanism, limitations, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 (combining multiple products, heuristic behavior) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, behavior, limitations, and parameter constraints. The only gap is the lack of explicit explanation for the 'country' and 'on' parameters, though their roles are partially implied by the description of coverages/exclusions.

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 description must compensate. It explains insurer_slugs explicitly (same length/order, pins each name to insurer) and product_names implicitly as the products to combine. However, it does not explicitly explain the 'on' parameter (default 'coverages') or the 'country' parameter, leaving semantics partially undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Flag CANDIDATE duplicate cover when combining 2+ products.' It clearly states the tool's scope (coverages/exclusions tagged by category) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it does not advise or rank, only surfaces likely duplicates for agent confirmation.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('when combining 2+ products') and provides guidance on the insurer_slugs parameter (same length/order as product_names). It also notes limitations ('can miss overlaps the taxonomy doesn't yet cover'), which implicitly tells the agent when not to rely solely on this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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