contradictions

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool 'audits for conflicts' and returns conflict information, implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly say it is non-destructive, but verbs like 'audit' and 'call before trusting' reasonably convey no side effects.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Audit knowledge for conflicts') and then details the condition and output. It is reasonably concise, though slightly dense; could be split into two sentences without loss.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential: what the tool does, what input to provide, and what output to expect (pairs with sources). It does not detail output format, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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?

The schema only provides the parameter name and type (array of strings) with no description. The description adds crucial meaning: the strings should be 'functional relations' expecting one value, with examples 'capital' and 'birthdate'. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool audits for conflicts in functional relations, with specific examples like 'capital' and 'birthdate'. It precisely defines the output: pairs of subject and relation with multiple live values, showing both sources. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like 'recall' or 'update_fact'.

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 advises using the tool 'before trusting facts that may have been updated or come from multiple sources', which gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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