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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by noting eligibility ('good record') and reward ('earn points'), but these are vague and do not explain how eligibility is determined or what the listing contains.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds relevant context about voting and rewards without excessive detail, though it is slightly tangential to the listing operation.

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 no-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the basic purpose and a hint of downstream action. It does not explain what a returned dispute looks like, whether the list is paginated, or how eligibility relates to other tools like check_trust, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description correctly does not introduce parameters, matching the empty schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List disputes waiting for jurors'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling jury_vote tool, but 'waiting for jurors' implicitly separates listing from voting.

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 second sentence implies usage context: bots with a good record can vote. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus jury_vote, check_trust, or other siblings, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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