Find near-duplicate pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the transparency burden. It usefully explains the detection concept and the kind of duplication targeted, but it does not disclose operational behavior such as crawling scope, rate limits, read-only guarantees, or what happens after the crawl.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, followed by vivid examples and a compelling reason for the tool's existence. Nothing is repeated from the schema, and no filler is present.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a strong conceptual foundation and enough context to infer its role among siblings. It could be more complete by stating what the result looks like (e.g., grouped pages or similarity scores), but the core invocation context is well covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description gives conceptual context that helps interpret 'threshold' and 'near-duplicate,' but it does not map to specific parameters or add syntax/format details beyond the schema. It earns the baseline but not more.

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 and resource ('Find pages') and clearly scopes the behavior to near-duplicate content that expresses the same idea in different words. Concrete examples ('template filled forty times, product variants with one word changed') and the contrast with 'identical titles' make the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from simple duplicate detection.

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 establishes a clear context for use: detecting pages that 'compete for one query and neither wins,' and it explicitly contrasts this with easy-to-spot identical titles. It does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough for selection.

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