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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it returns only detected contradictions and describes the result as pairs of statements with status. This clarifies scope and output without repeating annotation data.

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 sentences with no filler: the trigger conditions are front-loaded, the return shape is stated, and the misuse case is explicitly ruled out. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent when to invoke the tool, what it returns, and what it deliberately excludes, leaving no critical gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantics to enhance. The description correctly implies a no-input read operation, matching the empty input schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific resource (detected contradictions in memory) and a clear verb (returns pairs of contradicting statements). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a general memory list, so an agent can tell it apart from cortex_recall and other siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions: the user asks what contradicts what, or a memory is flagged as conflicting. It also provides a clear when-not-to-use exclusion ('Do not use it as a list of memories'), though it does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead.

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