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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds a meaningful semantic boundary: it 'describes contestation only; it does not adjudicate truth,' which clarifies the nature of the data and prevents misuse. It does not cover return format or pagination, but with annotations carrying the safety profile, this addition is valuable.

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, each earning its place: the first gives the usage condition, the second routes to siblings, and the third sets a behavioral boundary. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate usage context, alternatives, and a behavioral caveat. It does not describe the structure of returned dispute records, which might be helpful given the lack of an output schema, but the annotations and schema cover the essential calling mechanics.

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%, and both parameters (model_claim, provider_claim) are fully documented in the schema with optionality and provenance caveats. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource as 'mechanically contested public targets and the relation residue supporting those disputes,' which is specific enough to distinguish from siblings. However, it lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'returns', 'lists') and uses opaque jargon like 'relation residue' that may not immediately convey the output. It does name alternative tools, aiding 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use when you specifically want mechanically contested public targets') and names three siblings with contrasting purposes: commons_opportunities for mixed queues, commons_relations for raw edges, and commons_negative_results for failed paths. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this surface over alternatives.

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