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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'List' implies a read-only operation but that is never stated. It does disclose the return payload (opposing claim id, status, evidence strength, opposition strength), which is the main behavioral signal, but says nothing about permissions, limits, or empty-result behavior.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by return fields and a concrete call example. Minimal waste, though the return-field sentence partly duplicates what the output schema already declares.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter provenance, and an example call. The main residual gap is the absence of annotations for the safety profile, which the description only weakly implies via 'List'.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by adding provenance context ('<id from query_claims>'), telling the agent where a valid claim_id comes from—information the schema does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List claims stored as contradicting one claim', which is precise and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like get_evidence and query_claims by naming the opposition relationship, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 example 'get_contradictions(claim_id="<id from query_claims>")' gives a useful routing hint about where the id comes from, implying this follows claim lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no mention of siblings like get_evidence as an alternative for non-contradiction analysis.

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