check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the bidirectional querying scheme and 'disputed' fallback, a 5-pair / ~10-second-per-pair cost budget, required environment variables, the no-op behavior when unset, and a privacy-relevant detail that up to 200 characters of each note are sent to an external endpoint.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded before the caveats, and each block (accuracy, return semantics, cost limits, opt-in setup, args) is distinct and earns its place. The environment-variable paragraph is somewhat long relative to the single-parameter surface, but it is operationally necessary 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still clarifies the shape of results ('one line per pair', 'disputed' labeling), so nothing about return interpretation is ambiguous. Combined with cost limits, accuracy caveat, and opt-in setup, an agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only declares 'ids' as an untyped string, but the description compensates by specifying cardinality ('Two or more entry ids') and the exact format with an example ('249,255'). The only remaining gap is that the delimiter is shown rather than stated for other separators.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Has a small language model judge how the named entries relate') and enumerates the three relation verdicts it returns (CONTRADICTION, PROGRESS, INDEPENDENT). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'consolidate' by describing the input as a group produced by that 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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use it on a group from consolidate, or on two entries that seem to disagree.' It also states an explicit when-not/limitation ('Not authoritative: measured 67 % correct ... the result says where to look, not what is true') and the opt-in prerequisite conditions under which the tool does nothing.

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