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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: the dispute is scoped to one label and enters a pending state awaiting the owner's approval. It stops short of explaining consequences of approval or how to track the pending dispute.

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 short sentences with no filler. The action and its approval-wait behavior are both front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 mutation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the core action and the approval flow. It leaves gaps around what happens after approval, whether the dispute can be withdrawn, and how the pending status is surfaced, which matters for an open-world write tool.

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%, and the schema descriptions already explain that shipment_id comes from list_carrier_adjustments and that reason is written as if to Pirate Ship support. The description adds only "with your reason," so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ("Disputes") and resource ("carrier adjustments of one label"), making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the sibling list_carrier_adjustments as the source or contrast the two, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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: dispute an adjustment with a reason, and expect an owner approval step. There is no explicit guidance on when to dispute versus ignore or refund, no prerequisites beyond the schema's reference to list_carrier_adjustments, and no mention of what to do if a dispute is rejected.

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