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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful side effects: a dispute fee is HELD and returned only if the provider prevails, and the resolution path is three-tier with a final platform ruling. This gives the agent important expectations about cost, possible loss, and finality that structured annotations do not convey.

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?

The description is compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and actor, followed by the fee and process details. Every clause earns its place, and the three-tier resolution is presented in a clear, scannable sequence. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with only three parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential context: who should call it, what it does, the fee consequence, and the resolution flow. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without missing behavioral requirements. The output schema handles return-value documentation.

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%, and the input schema already explains evidence, listing_id, and criteria_ids. The tool description adds little beyond the phrase 'with evidence' and the mention of 'specific criteria,' which mirrors the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific actor and action: 'As the awarded provider: dispute the poster’s rejection of specific criteria, with evidence.' This clearly identifies the resource (rejected criteria) and the operation (dispute), and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools like market_review or market_validate, which address different stages of the workflow.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: after being awarded and when the poster has rejected specific criteria. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the actor and condition are specific enough that an agent can infer correct usage. The fee-hold and resolution process reinforce the gravity and appropriate timing.

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