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

Annotations only declare the mutation profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive); the description adds genuinely new behavior: a human adjudicates, the default outcome is a full refund, and it counts against the seller's Word Pass. It omits whether the seller can respond, whether the filing is reversible, and what the caller gets back.

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?

Four short fragments, front-loaded with the buyer framing and the decision outcome. The rhetorical question is slightly promotional, but no sentence is redundant.

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 output schema exists, and while the description states the resolution (full refund) it does not describe the immediate return (dispute id, pending status) or what happens during the adjudication window. For a consequential, non-idempotent action the picture is workable but incomplete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate: it never explains what order_id should reference or what a valid reason looks like (free text, categories, length). The phrase about delivery not matching the listing only loosely hints at expected reason content.

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 concrete action and outcome: escalate the order to a human at Kula Labs to decide, with a full refund if granted. That distinguishes it from seller-side answer_dispute and from my_disputes (which lists them), even though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition (delivery did not match the listing and the seller did not fix it) plus a timing constraint (14 days after delivery), which tells the agent when to reach for this tool rather than other recovery paths. It stops short of naming the alternative actions (redeliver, accept_delivery) that should be tried first.

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