scan_claim_for_contradictions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is incremental and that it persists new contradictions (a write side effect), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens to pre-existing contradictions, leaving real behavioral gaps for a mutating tool.

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 filler; the scan target and write behavior come first. Efficient, though it could incorporate usage routing without much added length.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more. It conveys scope and that contradictions are persisted, but omits any sense of what the scan returns or how results are surfaced, which an agent selecting this tool would benefit from.

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 (claimId, minConfidence) are fully documented in the schema, so the description needn't compensate. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb (scan), scope (single claim), and resource (contradictions), plus a key qualifier (incremental). This implicitly distinguishes it from scan_for_contradictions and scan_source_for_contradictions, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Incremental scan for a single claim" implies the usage context relative to the batch/source siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The routing must be inferred.

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