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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses real side effects: the dispute is placed in the provider's queue, is visible to Routavo, and is limited to one per receipt. It stops short of stating reversibility or auth requirements, but the important write-side behavior is clear.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying distinct value: action, inputs, preconditions, destination/side effect, and unique constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers what, when, preconditions, and consequences. It does not specify the return shape or error behavior, but those are not needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds beyond the schema by noting the reason should be short and that the receipt must verify and have charged something. It also connects the receipt parameter to the call() result implicitly through the mention of a metered call.

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-resource pair ('Flag a metered call') and names the exact domain (disputing a charge). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like call, discover, and verify by indicating this is the review/flagging action, not a creation or verification action.

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 gives concrete preconditions: the receipt must verify and must have charged something, and one dispute is allowed per receipt. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use them, but the conditions clearly gate when the tool applies.

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