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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey a key consequence: a verdict is issued and money moves according to it. However, it does not disclose whether the decision is irreversible, whether the dispute is closed, what confirmation or result is returned, or any permission/identity requirements beyond the ambiguous 'drawn arbiter'.

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 only two short sentences and contains no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the financial consequence is efficiently conveyed in the second.

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 5 parameters, 3 required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not explain how to identify the dispute (taskId), who the caller should be (by), when workerShareBps is required, or what happens after a successful call.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by linking 'split' to 'workerShareBps' and enumerating verdict values, but it leaves required parameters taskId and by completely unexplained, does not define workerShareBps units, and ignores the optional resolution parameter.

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 clearly states the action ('decides') and the possible outcomes ('upheld, rejected, or split'), and 'The money follows the verdict' signals that this is the binding resolution action rather than raising, listing, or fetching a dispute. It does not explicitly name the dispute resource or contrast with sibling tools, so it stops 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?

The phrase 'The drawn arbiter' implies a role-based precondition: only the selected arbiter should use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like get_dispute, raise_dispute, or list_disputes, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative conditions.

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