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

Annotations establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false. The description adds value beyond that: it discloses the state transition (evidence window opens) and a validation rule (parties must be distinct). It does not mention that non-idempotent calls may create duplicate cases or who is authorized to file, which would have pushed it to a 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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by the state effect and the two constraints that matter. No filler and nothing repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a non-idempotent four-parameter mutation with zero schema coverage, the description omits failure behavior (duplicate case, invalid parties, missing escrow) and authorization requirements, leaving meaningful gaps.

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% with four required params, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the two non-obvious ones: amount_minor is in minor currency units (cents) and claimant/respondent must be distinct. escrow_id is left entirely unexplained, and nothing ties claimant/respondent to participant identifiers on the escrow.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('File a dispute over an escrow') and adds the consequential side effect ('Opens the evidence window'), which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_case and list_cases. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not (e.g. submit_evidence for the later step), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Opens the evidence window' hints that this precedes submit_evidence, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or statement about prerequisites (e.g. escrow must exist, parties must be escrow participants). An agent can infer the workflow position but not the gating conditions.

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