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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: the refund is a held order where the authorisation is released and nothing is charged, the fee is included, it counts in the Word Pass, and it 'needs your key' (an auth requirement). This explains why destructiveHint=false despite a refund, providing genuine behavioral clarity.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with 'Seller:' and the action. Every sentence carries information (action, refund mechanics, Word Pass effect, key requirement), though the nested parenthetical is slightly dense.

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 2-param mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key consequence (authorisation released, nothing charged), the Word Pass effect, and the auth requirement. Minor gap: it doesn't state what happens to dispute state after settling.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the meaning of refund=true. The description largely restates the refund semantics ('Send refund: true') rather than adding syntax or detail beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (settle a dispute with a full refund) and clarifies the perspective ('Seller:'). It's distinguishable from related siblings like answer_dispute, open_dispute, and withdraw_dispute, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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 context that this is the seller self-settling with a refund and instructs 'Send refund: true,' which is actionable invocation guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance distinguishing it from answer_dispute or withdraw_dispute.

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