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

The description discloses non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: filing on a service quote pauses its payout auto-release, and disputes are resolved either by a deterministic auto-classifier or by admin review with a 72h seller SLA. The annotations only indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, so this context adds real value.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then the target constraint, then the consequences. It avoids repeating schema field names unnecessarily.

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?

It covers the main target-selection rule, reason compatibility, side effects, and processing outcomes. However, since there is no output schema, it omits what the response contains and does not mention post-filing steps (e.g., adding evidence), which would help an agent complete the full workflow.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping reason enums to order_id vs service_quote_id and clarifying that 'plus the generic three' reasons apply to service quotes, which is not fully explicit in the schema description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'File a dispute on a goods order... or a service quote.' It clearly distinguishes the action from sibling dispute tools like disputes_get, disputes_respond, and disputes_withdraw by defining its scope and the two target types.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: order_id for goods, service_quote_id for service quotes, and 'Exactly one target.' It also groups reasons by target type. However, it does not explicitly point to alternatives such as disputes_add_evidence or disputes_respond for related post-filing actions.

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