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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context: 'Stateless taster; nothing is stored' and the stance that it surfaces conflict rather than smoothing it over, which is useful behavioral character beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the usage trigger, then adds two compact behavioral notes. Slightly stylized phrasing ('DSGHT surfaces the conflict rather than smoothing it over') is close to marketing but still conveys behavior, so it earns most of its space.

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 single-parameter, read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description supplies the trigger, the statelessness, and the analytical stance. Nothing critical is missing, though it does not say what form the output takes or how conflicts are presented.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'text'. The description restates the input as pasted strategy text but adds no format, length, or structural guidance beyond what the schema provides. 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 verb (detects) and a precise resource (structural contradictions / tensions in strategy text), and the phrase 'user pastes strategy text' distinguishes it from data-retrieval siblings like get_public_tensions and extract_assumptions. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user pastes strategy text and asks what is internally inconsistent.' That is clear usage context, but it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. vs. extract_assumptions or get_public_tensions).

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