list_contradictions

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not say the operation is read-only, mention default/max result sizes, pagination behavior, sorting, or any permission requirements; it only characterizes the fields a record carries, which the schema already implies.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the filterable dimensions are listed up front. It is appropriately sized, though it is a flat statement rather than sharply front-loaded with the most decision-relevant 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?

For a read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: no return format, no ordering or pagination guidance, and no mention that all filters are optional (zero required parameters).

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 all six parameters (including the enums for status and severity and the limit/offset defaults) are already documented. The description merely restates the filter dimensions, adding no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('queries') and resource ('stored contradiction records') plus the filter dimensions. The word 'stored' implicitly separates it from scan_* siblings that discover contradictions, but it never names those alternatives explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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: 'stored' records suggests retrieving existing data rather than scanning for new contradictions. There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_contradiction for a single record or the various scan_* tools.

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