contradiction.conflicts.advise

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only deterministic calculation' and adds the deterministic behavior, which is beyond the annotations. It also discloses the analytical dimensions (authority, freshness, evidence) without contradicting any annotation.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core function and then states the recommendation output and read-only nature. It is efficient, though the phrase 'advisory' and 'remediation steps' could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), the schema is fully described, annotations cover safety/idempotence, and an output schema exists. The description supplies the decision-making purpose and deterministic/read-only nature, which is sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 sole parameter 'contradictionId' is already documented in the schema with 'The unique ID of the contradiction record to analyze for resolution advice'. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('authority, freshness, and evidence comparison between conflicting claims') with a concrete goal: advising which claim likely represents current truth and remediation steps. This distinguishes it from siblings like contradiction.conflicts.resolve (which implies mutation) and contradiction.conflicts.get (which only retrieves).

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 context is clear: use this tool when conflicting claims need authority/freshness/evidence comparison and advisory recommendations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to choose it over siblings, especially the non-mutating 'resolve' sibling.

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