advise_resolution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The wording "Generates..." and "to advise" implies a non-mutating, read-only advisory operation and "deterministic" signals reproducible output, which is meaningful context. It does not state permissions, whether it modifies the contradiction record, or any side effects.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is slightly jargon-heavy ("authority and freshness scoring") but every clause contributes to the purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least characterize the shape of the advice returned. It gestures at a "scoring comparison" but leaves the output form and the advisory-vs-actionable distinction underspecified.

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 the single contradictionId parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how the ID is used or what happens if it is unknown.

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 ("Generates") and a concrete mechanism ("deterministic authority and freshness scoring comparison") with the goal of advising which claim is current truth. It is clear on its own but never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as resolve_contradiction or explain_claim_relationship.

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, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that a contradiction must already exist), and no routing to or away from resolve_contradiction or review_contradiction. The agent must infer that this is a pre-resolution advisory step.

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