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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes further by explaining exactly what is at stake: refund returns money to the buyer now, contest escalates to a Licium ruling, and inaction triggers an automatic refund at respond_by. This discloses the financial/timeout behavior an agent most needs before committing. Consistent with destructiveHint, no contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the role and trigger, then the branching outcomes and the timeout default. Every clause carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation, it covers purpose, deadline, both action outcomes, and the no-answer default. Minor gaps remain (what a contest ruling entails, the purpose of 'note'), but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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?

The description meaningfully explains the required 'action' enum (refund vs contest and their effects), which the schema leaves bare. However, schema coverage is only 25% and call_id and note receive no explanation anywhere, so the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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 and the actor role ('As the supplier, answer a buyer's objection'), which cleanly separates it from the buyer-side sibling capability_call_dispute. The scope of the operation is unambiguous to an agent.

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 a clear triggering context ('notice capability_call.disputed') and a deadline ('before its respond_by'), plus the consequences that select each action (refund vs contest). It doesn't name specific sibling alternatives to avoid, but the when-to-use condition and the branch semantics are well stated.

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