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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the authorization proof requirement, that verification happens in-transaction, lifecycle state gating, that resolution never triggers a financial transfer, and idempotency via idempotencyRef. It stops short of describing failure behavior (what happens if the proof is invalid or the state is wrong) or what the call returns, which keeps it below 5.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and state transition, then preconditions, then the critical non-effect ('NEVER triggers a financial transfer') and idempotency. No sentence is filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the hard parts: authority model, state gating, side-effect absence, and idempotency. It leaves the caller without any indication of the response shape or error semantics, which is the remaining gap.

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 all seven parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only one bit of parameter meaning beyond the schema, tying idempotency behavior to idempotencyRef; proof, reason, and evidenceRefs receive no additional semantic detail in the prose.

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 ('Raises a durable dispute on a commitment') plus the resulting state transition ('transitions it to the disputed state'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like resolve_dispute, which handles the opposite end of the dispute lifecycle.

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 preconditions: the commitment must be in evidence_submitted or fulfilled per the canonical lifecycle, and the caller must hold an unrevoked, unexpired authorization with an EIP-712 proof. It does not name the sibling resolve_dispute or state what to do if the commitment is in another state, but the gating conditions are concrete enough to select the tool correctly.

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