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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only summary nature and that resolution belongs to another tool, but it does not say whether individual contradiction pairs or IDs are returned, whether results are scoped to a session/workspace, or anything about freshness of the counts.

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 filler; the core output content is front-loaded and the alternative tool is named last, which is the right ordering. Every clause carries 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the result contains (updated vs unresolved counts). The one residual gap is that an agent cannot tell whether individual contradictions are enumerated, which matters given the tool's name.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No argument syntax or defaults need explaining.

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 gives a specific verb ("summarize") and resource (contradictions) plus what the summary contains: counts of beliefs updated by newer memories and counts still unresolved. It is somewhat at odds with the name find_contradictions, which suggests enumerating individual pairs rather than returning aggregate counts — that mismatch costs a point.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to a sibling: "Use mee_resolve to settle a specific pair," which cleanly separates the aggregate view from per-pair resolution. It does not state when this overview is warranted (e.g. before deciding what to resolve), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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