contradiction.claims.get

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description redundantly states 'Read-only operation' and describes return content, but adds no additional behavioral disclosure such as auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the core action, followed by a dense list of return components. No filler, redundant modifiers, or digressions. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, and return contents. With annotations declaring safety and idempotency, schema covering both parameters, and an output schema present, the description provides all necessary information for correct invocation of this simple read-only tool.

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 both claimId and includeHistory are already fully documented. The description's mention of 'by ID' and 'chronological historical value transitions' aligns with these parameters but adds little beyond the schema. 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 states the exact action ('Retrieves complete details for a single factual claim by ID') and enumerates the returned content. By emphasizing 'single... by ID', it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like contradiction.claims.list, making the tool's scope immediately unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for retrieving one known claim rather than listing or scanning, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided. An agent must infer when to use it versus claims.list or claims.analyze, so the guidance is only implied.

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