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

The description reveals significant behavioral consequences beyond annotations: funds are frozen, platform investigation triggers, settlement outcomes (refund/payout/compromise), resolution time (1-3 days), and authentication requirements. Annotations are minimal, so this context is valuable and does not contradict them.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, when-to-use, mechanism, resolution timeline, escalation path, reason codes, auth, and next step. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no 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 mutating action with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers the full behavioral lifecycle: trigger, freeze, investigation, settlement types, timing, escalation, and follow-up monitoring. Nothing critical is missing.

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% with descriptions for every parameter, including the reason code mapping. The description repeats the codes and adds a cross-reference ('same as reject_task_review'), which is marginally useful but largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Open a formal dispute on a task', clearly stating the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing reject_task_review and submit_support_request, making its role unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('you believe the operator's claim is unjustified, the proof is fraudulent, or there is breach of contract') and typical invocation context ('typically called after reject_task_review'). Also gives an escalation alternative via submit_support_request with specific parameters, clearly guiding tool selection.

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