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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a non-obvious behavior: it refreshes the dispute's status from the card issuer first. It also enumerates the possible status values and return fields, adding meaningful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and identifier, then adds refresh behavior and return contents. Every phrase adds useful information without redundancy.

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 read-only single-resource lookup with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly. The refresh behavior and status enumeration provide additional context that makes the tool's behavior predictable.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the single 'id' parameter, so the description does not need to add much. 'By its id' confirms the semantic role of the parameter, but there is no additional format, requiredness, or usage detail beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 ('Reads'), a specific resource ('one card dispute'), and the lookup key ('by its id'). It also distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by emphasizing a single dispute retrieved by id.

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 'one card dispute by its id' phrasing makes the targeted, single-record use case clear, contrasting with list/collection siblings like card_get_list_card_disputes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer the appropriate selection.

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