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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context, but its status values conflict with the schema enum, making behavioral expectations unreliable.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the core list meaning. However, the second sentence duplicates schema information while introducing inaccurate status values, so it does not fully earn its place.

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?

The side-scoping context is valuable, and the schema covers the parameters, but the inaccurate status values and lack of guidance on pagination/output behavior make the description incomplete for a paginated list endpoint. An agent could attempt invalid status filters and fail.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description enumerates status values that do not match the schema: awaiting_seller, resolved_for_buyer, and resolved_for_seller are not in the schema enum. This is actively misleading for an agent constructing a status filter, so it falls below baseline.

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 phrase 'List disputes' states a specific verb and resource, and the buyer-side/seller-side scoping makes it clear what the tool returns. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling dispute tools such as disputes_get, disputes_file, and disputes_respond.

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 context on when to use the tool: to list the authenticated principal's disputes, either filed by them or filed against their orders. It does not explicitly name alternatives for single-dispute lookup, but the context is sufficient for an agent to route to this tool for list operations.

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