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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful domain framing of claim drift, but says nothing about what a detection result looks like or how it treats more than two statements, which matters for an analytical tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the disambiguation. Nothing redundant and nothing padding the length.

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 tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose and routing well. The remaining gap is the ambiguous cardinality of the statements array and the absence of any hint at the shape of the contradiction result.

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 must carry the burden; it does convey that inputs are free-text claims, and the schema's example clarifies the shape. However, it says 'two' outputs while the parameter is an unbounded array of strings, leaving an agent unsure whether exactly two items are required or whether items are compared pairwise.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Detect contradictions between two free-text agent outputs') plus the domain gloss 'natural-language claim drift'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling detect_contradiction by input type, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either 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?

States the selection rule outright: free-text drift here, structured key/value claims that must agree in detect_contradiction. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named, leaving no inference needed.

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