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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'Read-only' and describes the return type with specific fields. No contradictions. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or data freshness.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key capabilities. Every sentence adds value, though including a brief sibling differentiation would improve structure.

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 presence of sibling tools for dispute management, the description does not explain that this tool lists multiple disputes (as opposed to get_dispute_by_id). It covers pagination and filtering but lacks details on configId requirement and output schema. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description adds high-level meaning (pagination, ordering, filtering by buyer/seller/state) but does not detail individual parameters like configId, disputesSkip, or the filter object structure. Provides some context but insufficient to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 explicitly states 'Reads dispute records from the Boson subgraph', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_dispute_by_id (single record) and mutation tools by indicating it is a read operation returning an array.

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 mentions pagination, ordering, and filtering features but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_dispute_by_id or when to avoid it. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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