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

Annotations already declare non-readonly/non-idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds real value beyond them: the 7-day deadline, the 48-hour staff SLA, and the outcome policy (proof, store credit, or credit if no answer). It does not detail auth beyond the passport_token param, but the behavioral consequence is well disclosed.

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 tight sentences with the primary scope front-loaded before the deadline and SLA details. No filler, though the second sentence packs several clauses.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers timing, outcome, and consequence well. Missing only explicit guidance on sibling alternatives, which is a minor gap given the distinct purpose.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description restates item_ids behavior ('without item_ids, the whole result'), which largely duplicates the schema rather than adding syntax or format meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource (dispute items of a delivered job) with clear scope, making it inherently distinguishable from siblings like accept_job or claim_refund. It does not explicitly name an alternative to route against, so it falls short of a 5.

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 concrete usage context: the 7-day window after delivery and where the ids come from (disputable_items). However, it never names an alternative (e.g., claim_refund) or states when not to use this tool.

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