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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a side effect ('Triggers reputation accounting on the disputed author') and mentions the server constructs the contradiction at the target's coordinate, which implies a creation action. However, it does not address reversibility, permissions beyond did:key, rate limits, or failure behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The primary action and key requirements are front-loaded, and the side effect is noted at the end. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, a nested object (pow), and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, key inputs, and a side effect, but it omits details about the pow and sig structure (only referencing 'same as drop'), and does not describe return values or error conditions. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent might need to infer.

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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for the sig and pow parameters by stating they follow the same rules as drop, which is helpful since those two lack schema descriptions. However, it does not explain the format or construction of these parameters, and it repeats some schema details for target and author without adding new meaning.

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 and resource: 'Publish a contradiction against an existing drop.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like drop (which publishes a regular drop) and reputation (which likely queries reputation). The purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.

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 states prerequisites (target drop id and did:key author) and notes that signature/PoW rules match drop, implying a similar invocation pattern. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose contradict over drop or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusions. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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