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

Annotations are all-false and thus provide a thin profile (mutating, non-idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the burden. It adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the authorization requirement (`respond_dispute` action), but it stops there: no mention of whether the response is final, whether it notifies the buyer, or what state the dispute must be in.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the permission requirement earning its place. Minor deduction: the 'Free-form text 1–4000 chars' sentence is redundant with the schema's minLength/maxLength fields, adding noise for an agent that already has the schema.

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 simple 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and permissions adequately. It is incomplete on the return value/procedure outcome, any dispute-state prerequisites, and routing among dispute siblings — an agent cannot tell what success looks like or whether responding is allowed for a given dispute.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description's '1–4000 chars' merely repeats the schema's minLength/maxLength constraints and adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the structured data 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?

States a specific action ('respond') on a specific resource ('dispute'), qualified by scope ('Seller-side'). This cleanly separates it from the dispute sibling tools (disputes_file, disputes_withdraw, disputes_add_evidence, disputes_get/list) since each has a distinct verb and the seller-side qualifier removes ambiguity about which party acts.

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?

Gives real context: it is the seller-side response path and names a concrete prerequisite ('Requires the seller delegation's `respond_dispute` action'). However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over the dispute siblings (e.g., evidence vs. response, withdraw vs. respond), and there are no when-not-to-use exclusions, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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