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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description discloses concrete side effects: a state transition to 'issue_reported', recording of the issue, and admin notification. It could still say what happens on duplicate calls or failed orders, but it adds real behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the state effects, then the auth requirement — every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the outcome (status change, admin notification) and the auth model, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor omissions remain, such as error/repeat-call behavior and return payload.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters, including the two enums. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. whether photo_urls is required for certain reasons), so the 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 states a precise verb and resource ('Open a dispute'), the triggering precondition ('on a delivered order awaiting the buyer's confirmation'), and the resulting state change ('Moves the order to issue_reported'), which is enough to distinguish it from every sibling tool listed.

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 clearly specifies the context in which the tool applies (a delivered order still awaiting buyer confirmation) plus the required authorization identity, so an agent knows when it can be called. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling overlaps this function, so the gap is minor.

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