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, and it does: it reveals that the action mutates state by freezing the payout and draws an arbiter. It does not mention costs, reversibility, or downstream fallout, but the major side effects are transparent.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and follows with the two key consequences. No filler words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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?

The description captures the essential scenario and side effects, but with no output schema or param explanations, an agent is left guessing how taskId and attemptId relate, whether attemptId is the contested acceptance, and what the response will look like. It is adequate but not fully complete for a mutating action.

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?

There are four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining taskId, raisedBy, reason, or attemptId. It implies that 'reason' is the dispute rationale and 'raisedBy' is the party, but leaves the identifier semantics to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Challenge an acceptance inside its window.' The added effects, 'freezes the payout and draws an arbiter,' clearly differentiate it from read-only dispute tools like get_dispute/list_disputes and from the resolution action arbitrate_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?

The description gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: only parties may use it and only within the acceptance's window. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the temporal and role constraints are meaningful guidance.

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