contradiction.claims.analyze

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

Annotations already mark readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description confirms 'Read-only operation'. It adds value by disclosing what the analysis examines (semantic meaning, value differences, numeric/temporal ranges, contextual dimensions) and what it returns, which an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema alone.

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 front-load the action, follow with the analytical scope, and end with the return payload. There is no filler, and every clause adds information.

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?

With a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete for invocation. A small gap is the lack of any statement about prerequisites or error behavior (e.g., claims must already exist), but this is minor given the structured data.

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%, so the descriptions of claimAId, claimBId, and explainContext already carry full meaning. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the generic notion of comparing two claims; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Performs deep comparative analysis between two factual claims' – a specific verb and resource that immediately distinguishes it from the single-claim accessors (claims.get/list) and the conflict-oriented siblings. It further narrows the output to contradiction classification, severity, confidence, and explanation, so an agent can select it without examining the schema.

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 gives a clear invocation context: pass two claim IDs and receive a contradiction assessment. It never names alternatives or states when not to use it, so it stops short of the explicit routing of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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