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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses data sources (subgraphs, RPC fallback, Etherscan scans) and explicitly states Hive does not judge, freeze, or enforce. This goes beyond the bare minimum, though details on response shape or rate limits are absent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact list of sources and a key safety caveat. No redundant or filler content, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the types of data returned (dispute history, active cases, flags) and mentions the underlying data sources. It is adequate for a read-only check tool, but could be more explicit about response structure or error scenarios.

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% for both parameters: chain includes the allowed values and address specifies format. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond re-stating 'counterparty address + chain', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action: 'return public dispute history, active arbitration cases, and on-chain reversal-pattern flags' given an address and chain. It identifies the resource (counterparty dispute data) and clearly distinguishes from siblings like dispute_today by focusing on a specific counterparty.

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 clearly implies when to use: when you need dispute history for a counterparty on a supported chain. It adds a behavioral caveat ('Observational only') that helps avoid misuse, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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