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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it identifies this as a read operation, specifies credential and workspace-claim requirements, and discloses that self-registered sandbox keys receive 403 until the workspace is claimed. It could say more about other failure modes or rate limits, but the key operational constraints are present.

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 compact sentences: purpose and returned fields first, then the parameter instruction, then prerequisites. Every sentence adds useful information with no wasted wording.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the returned fields, the required input, and the credential/workspace prerequisites. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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 single parameter is already fully documented. The description reinforces that dispute_id should be passed and hints it matches list_disputes output, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read one payment dispute', and enumerates the key fields returned (payment, customer, amount, status, reason). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_disputes tool by emphasizing a single dispute.

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 clearly states the required parameter ('Pass dispute_id') and prerequisites (Last Price credential, claimed workspace). It does not explicitly name list_disputes as the alternative for listing disputes, but the single-item scope makes the intended use clear.

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