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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'authorized workspace' scoping, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, whether resolved contradictions are included by default, or what the response shape looks like—though the includeResolved parameter partially covers that.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it includes the workspace scoping. It is concise and readable, though it could have added a brief note about the includeResolved parameter without becoming verbose.

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 read-only list tool with four self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention pagination defaults, the resolved-filtering behavior, or what fields the returned contradictions contain. An agent could call it correctly, but it would have to rely on the schema and parameter names for full understanding.

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 carries the burden, but it only mentions 'a claim' and 'the authorized workspace,' which maps to claimId but not to limit, offset, or includeResolved. The parameter names and defaults in the schema are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already shows. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema is fairly clear.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('recorded contradictions for a claim'), and scopes it to 'the authorized workspace.' It clearly distinguishes from mutation tools like helvabase_resolve_contradiction, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 implies a read-only inspection use case and the workspace scoping is stated, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over alternatives like helvabase_resolve_contradiction or helvabase_read_business_claim. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but exclusions are not stated.

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