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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, specifically that escrow is frozen and seller cashout is blocked. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description details the real-world consequences. It does not disclose reversibility or prerequisites, but the disclosed effects are significant.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the action and immediately states the critical outcomes, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior of the tool, including the core effect of freezing escrow and blocking seller cashout. It does not explain the full dispute lifecycle or return values, but for a simple mutation with two self-explanatory parameters, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (purchaseId and reason) or their expected values. It does not compensate for the lack of schema detail, leaving the agent without additional semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the action: 'Buyer opens a dispute' and specifies the key effect 'Freezes escrow (no auto-release) and blocks seller cashout.' This directly conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like request_refund or ack_purchase.

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 implies the tool is for buyers to open a dispute, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., request_refund, confirm_delivery). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so usage guidance is mostly implied.

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