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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by naming the permission prerequisites (review scope, reviewer role) and clarifying the effect ('records a governance decision, not final document approval'). It still omits what failure or conflict responses look like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its alternatives, then prerequisites, then scope clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden; it partially addresses this by clarifying the governance scope. Prerequisites and effect boundaries are covered, but post-call behavior (success/failure, conflict against an already-decided contradiction) is not.

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 coverage is only 25% (only idempotencyKey is documented), so the description must compensate. It does convey the meaning of the status values ('resolve' vs 'accept the risk'), which maps to the status enum, but claimId and contradictionId remain undiscussed and the 'review scope'/'reviewer role' phrases do not correspond to declared parameters.

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 (resolve / accept risk) and resource (one claim contradiction), plus the semantic distinction between resolving and accepting risk. It does not name the sibling relationship to helvabase_claim_contradictions, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Preconditions are given ('Requires review scope and a reviewer role'), which implies when the tool is callable, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to alternatives such as the contradiction-listing sibling. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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