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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond those: the endpoint enforces role-based access scoping and 'returns 404 if the dispute doesn't belong to either of the calling actor's roles,' and it specifies the response substance ('full evidence trail and timeline'). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the action and scope lead, then the access model and error behavior follow. Every clause contributes information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool.

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?

For a low-complexity single-parameter read tool, everything needed to call it correctly is present: caller eligibility, the 404 failure mode, and a summary of the return payload. The annotations carry the safety profile, and the description covers the rest; no output schema is needed given the simple fetch semantics.

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 100% and dispute_id already carries a description ('UUID of the dispute to fetch'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by id' confirms the parameter's role but adds no format, sourcing, or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Fetch one dispute by id' with the added scope 'full evidence trail and timeline.' The 'one dispute by id' wording inherently differentiates it from sibling tools such as disputes_list (plural listing), disputes_file, disputes_respond, and disputes_add_evidence.

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 gives clear access context: 'Buyer-side or seller-side caller' establishes who may invoke it, and the 404 condition implicitly excludes callers who are not a party to the dispute. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name alternatives, such as disputes_list for locating a dispute ID first.

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