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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it atomically pauses release and refund, records immutable parties and locked amount, requires an operator-signed receipt and X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON and path, and expires after 14 days with a timeout refund. It also discloses the paid-URL/fee model and that audit is pending, which an agent cannot get from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 purpose and core mechanics are front-loaded, and most clauses carry real information (limits, expiry, auth, fees). It is dense and slightly sprawling, with items like 'Company-authored' adding little, but nothing is badly misplaced.

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 destructive, paid, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important operational context: limits, atomic pause, auth header, fee model, expiry/refund behavior, and a pointer to /api/dispute-contract for schemas. What it lacks is any explanation of the input fields themselves.

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 0% and the description never explains the parameters. It mentions recording 'the claim reference' vaguely but says nothing about reason_code values, statement_sha256, idempotency_key, or the escrow_id/order_id oneOf requirement. With no schema descriptions to lean on, this is a real 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?

States a specific verb and resource: an escrow party 'opens a dispute' against a 'funded escrow or a funded work order.' That is concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like wever_workorder-dispute or wever_purchase-dispute, so an agent still has to infer which dispute opener applies.

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?

Gives explicit qualifying and rejecting conditions: rejects locked value above 25.00 USDC, unfunded or disposed funds, unrelated wallets, and notes no new principal enters. That tells the agent a lot about when the call will fail. It still doesn't route to alternatives such as dispute-resolve or submit-evidence.

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