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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses that the tool creates a Dispute(OPEN), does NOT modify session status, is idempotent (returns alreadyReported=true with disputeId if an open dispute exists), and notifies the org. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy; it efficiently covers functionality, side effects, and idempotency.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers core context: what it does, what it doesn't do, idempotency, and notification. It is missing details on the success response (other than idempotent case) and potential errors, but overall it is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'reason' parameter fully (enum values and meanings) and implies the roles of orgSlug and sessionId. However, it does not describe 'note' or 'apiKey' semantics, leaving some parameters under-explained despite their presence in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting on behalf of the client that a provider did not show up or a session was cancelled, creating a dispute. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it does NOT change session status, differentiating it from portal_session_cancel and similar tools.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (reasons for reporting) and explicitly excludes a major alternative behavior (changing session status). While it doesn't name specific alternative tools, the guidelines are clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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