find_contradictions_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. While it mentions 'rebuttals vs originals' indicating the relationship type it detects, it lacks details on how contradictions are identified, what the output structure looks like (despite having an output schema), or any side effects and constraints.

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 sentence (9 words) that is front-loaded with the verb and contains no redundancy. However, given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata, this brevity contributes to under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

Given the semantic complexity of detecting contradictions/rebuttals, 0% schema coverage, and lack of annotations, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain the algorithm for contradiction detection, citation requirements, or expected result granularity despite these being important 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter. It fails to do so, providing no information about pagination limits, defaults, or usage of the parameter, though the single parameter name is somewhat self-descriptive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('scrolls') and clarifies the specific scope ('conflicting conclusions', 'rebuttals vs originals'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like find_related_tool or find_gaps_tool.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_related_tool), nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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