Detect Duplicate Content

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: which page elements are analyzed, how near-duplicates are determined, and that results are grouped. This gives an agent realistic expectations about the analysis logic without contradicting the read-only 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then adding supported sources. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every sentence contributes useful 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 description covers the main purpose, the analyzed content areas, the duplicate detection logic, and supported page sources. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the result shape would be ideal, but the description still provides enough context for a correct invocation.

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 all seven parameters. The description adds context about source modes and analysis scope, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action ('detect duplicate and near-duplicate content'), a clear resource ('a site's pages'), and the distinct behavior of grouping exact duplicates while identifying near-duplicates by word similarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_content_quality or compare_pages. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs duplicate or near-duplicate content analysis. It also indicates the supported page sources (sitemap, crawl, URL list), which helps route the invocation. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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