explain_claim_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Explains' implies a read-only analysis, but the description never confirms lack of side effects, required permissions, or what the explanation output contains, leaving real behavioral gaps.

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 with no redundant filler, listing the context dimensions compactly. The dimension list is long but each item earns its place by signaling the analysis surface.

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 two-ID, read-only analysis tool with full schema coverage the description is nearly sufficient, and listing the context dimensions hints at the analysis depth. Without an output schema or annotations, however, it should say more about the shape of the explanation returned.

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 both parameters (claimAId, claimBId) are documented with UUID format in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no ordering or pairing semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 (explains) tied to a specific resource (the relationship/contradiction status between two claims) plus the reasoning dimensions used. It is far from a tautology, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'analyze_claim_pair', which an agent could easily mistake for the same operation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as analyze_claim_pair or scan_claim_for_contradictions. The agent must infer that this is the explanatory counterpart to the scanning tools.

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