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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that caller access is verified server-side and that long lists require pagination, both useful behavioral details. There is no contradiction with 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and flow naturally from action to filters to return fields to pagination. No filler.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential call semantics: what is listed, how to scope it, and how to page. The only minor gap is the filter name case mismatch and no explicit statement that card_id and company_id are alternatives, not requirements.

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 descriptions are essentially empty (only 'UUID value wrapper'), so the description bears the burden of explaining filter.card_id and filter.company_id semantics and the role of page_token/page_size. It does this clearly, though it uses snake_case while the schema uses camelCase (cardId/companyId), a mild mismatch.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists card disputes') and immediately clarifies two scoping modes (by card_id or company_id), which distinguishes it from sibling card_get_dispute and card_get_list_cards. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains the two filtering modes and when each is appropriate, and notes that company-wide access is verified server-side. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with the singular card_get_dispute for fetching one dispute, so alternatives are not fully spelled out.

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