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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses two real behaviors: submissions go through manual ('hand') review, and contact data is retained but never returned. It omits what the caller gets back on submit, whether a dispute ID is issued, and the practical consequence of non-idempotency.

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 terse fragments with no wasted words, but the telegraphic style ('Same hand review as POST /v1/dispute') trades clarity for brevity and the auth note is front-loaded ahead of what the tool actually does.

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?

A 5-parameter, non-idempotent write operation with no output schema and 20% schema coverage needs more: what happens after submission, how duplicates are handled, and what statement/receipt_id should contain are all absent.

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?

Only host has a schema description (20% coverage). The description still adds meaning to two undocumented params: token is constrained to the plan bearer token (not x402), and contact has a stated storage/return policy. statement and receipt_id remain unexplained, which is why this is not a 5.

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 never states the action in its own words; it leans on the title ('Submit a dispute') and instead spends its opening on the auth mechanism ('Plan bearer token, never x402'). The reference to POST /v1/dispute hints at the operation but an agent reading only the description would not get an explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

'Never x402' is a useful selection constraint on the auth path, but there is no guidance on when to file a dispute versus checking dispute_status, no prerequisite steps, and no note on whether re-submitting the same host/statement creates duplicates (idempotentHint=false).

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