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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: deterministic, retrieval-first, no language model runs, ~2s response time, treats draft as data not instructions, and will report insufficient coverage rather than fabricating tensions.

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?

The description is relatively long but every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It could be slightly more concise, but it is not 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the brief's contents and behavior when coverage is insufficient. This is comprehensive for a complex tool with no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds overall context but no per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: turning a draft claim, decision, or plan into a bounded inquiry brief. It lists specific outputs (shared ground, attributed tensions, missing evidence, questions, next move) and distinguishes itself from siblings by being deterministic, retrieval-first, and without language model runs.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to inspect a draft) and what it produces. It notes limitations (e.g., says so if corpus lacks coverage) and informs an investigation without deciding. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like omnarai_divergence or omnarai_context.

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