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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the decision behavior (RED/GREEN), determinism and recomputability, and a concrete rate limit plus entitlement gate. It stops short of describing the return payload structure or error behavior on malformed claims.

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?

Dense but efficient: the product/entitlement tag, the purpose and rule, then behavior and rate limit, each in one clause. Every sentence carries information, front-loading the entitlement context before the operation.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, the contradiction rule, result semantics, determinism, and cost/entitlement gating. The remaining gap is a brief statement of the return format, which matters since no output schema exists.

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% and the single `claims` parameter is already described in the schema (key/subject and value). The description clarifies the evaluation semantics (conflicting values on the same key), which adds some meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the structural work.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Detect contradictions across structured claims,' with an explicit rule (same key, conflicting values → RED, else GREEN). An agent immediately understands the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `agents_contradiction`, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or named alternative, even though a similarly named sibling (`agents_contradiction`) exists and would be the obvious confusion point. The only usage-related content is commercial ('3 free calls/day, then entitlement ledger'), which describes cost, not selection criteria.

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