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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two important facts: escrow remains held during the dispute and a third-party verdict panel adjudicates against the acceptance criteria. It omits irreversibility, expected timing, and whether the counterparty is notified.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequences trailing — no filler, nothing repeated.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what happens to escrow and who decides, though it leaves the outcome path (what a verdict triggers, timing, notification) unstated.

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 100%, so job_id and reason are already documented; the description's mention of 'acceptance criteria' only loosely echoes the schema's 'Which criteria the delivery fails, and why.' Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Poster disputes a delivery') and pins the actor to the poster, distinguishing it from siblings like jobs_approve, jobs_deliver, and jobs_cancel without needing their schemas.

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?

Usage is implied — a poster disputes after a delivery fails the acceptance criteria — but no alternative is named (e.g., when to approve instead, or whether a precheck like referee_precheck should precede it). No when-not guidance is given.

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