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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the required credential ('party'), the cost ('Free'), the legal source (Rule 2.2A), and critically that the action is non-destructive in the sense that it does not itself start a case. It omits what happens if the deadline has already expired, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Short and front-loaded: intent first, then the operative constraint (report before expiry), then the non-effect and the credential/cost/source. The opening 'Some has gone wrong...' framing sentence is slightly redundant with the second sentence but sets intent efficiently and little else is wasted.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry behavior — and it covers credential, cost, timing, source, and non-effect adequately for a simple two-parameter notification tool. The only real gap is that the parameters themselves are undocumented, which slightly undermines completeness.

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 0% and the description never addresses either parameter. It vaguely implies 'your agreement' relates to the required submissionId, but the 'note' field (max 500 chars) is entirely undefined, and even submissionId's expected format is left to inference. The description does not compensate for the schema 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 and resource: 'Records a dispute under your agreement.' The clarification 'It does not itself start a case' separates it from claim-filing siblings like file_claim/lodge_claim, and the timing note separates it from the specific dispute_* variants. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 real usage condition: report before expiry to keep the agreement available for a later claim, and clarifies that this is not the path to start litigation. However, it never explicitly names the alternative tool (e.g. file_claim) an agent should pick when it *does* want to start a case, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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