get_contradiction

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful return content ('complete claim and source records'), which implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an unknown ID, or whether contradictions can be in different states. Partial disclosure only.

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 sentence that front-loads the operation and ID scope, with the return-content clause earning its place. No filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully states what is returned (claim plus source records), which compensates for the missing output schema. It is slightly thin on error/state behavior but adequate for a simple single-record fetch.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage ('The unique ID of the contradiction record'). The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Retrieves a single contradiction by ID') and distinguishes itself from the list_* siblings through the 'single' scope. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the resource and cardinality are 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?

Usage is only implied: the ID-based lookup and the phrase 'for in-depth agent investigation' suggest this is the detail/drill-down step after list_contradictions, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to siblings like list_contradictions or get_contradiction_history.

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