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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the auth model (EIP-712 proof), the scoping behavior (commitment-scoped, silent empty result without authorization), the optional filter, and that the operation is read-only. Remaining gaps are minor — result ordering and behavior on an unknown or foreign commitmentId are not stated.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before moving to prerequisites and scoping caveats. Every sentence carries information; the parenthetical field list is slightly dense but earns its place by substituting for an absent output schema.

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 six-parameter, three-required read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the important angles: return shape, auth requirements, scoping semantics, filtering, and read-only nature. It stops just short of fully complete because pagination usage and error/empty-result distinctions are left to the schema.

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%, so every parameter including the status enum and limit/offset defaults is already documented structurally, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds some meaning — it clarifies that 'proof' is an authority proof and that commitmentId/agentId jointly determine visibility — but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond that.

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 ('Returns the durable dispute records for a commitment') and enumerates the return fields (identifiers, status, resolution, attribution, timestamps). This is unambiguously distinct from siblings like raise_dispute, resolve_dispute, list_evidence, or list_commitments without needing to open a schema.

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 concrete preconditions for use: an EIP-712 authority proof and an active authorization on the commitment, plus the consequence of calling without one ('callers with no authorization see nothing'). What it lacks is explicit routing against alternatives — it never says to use raise_dispute when you want to create one or resolve_dispute to act on one.

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