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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add meaningful context by specifying the types of data returned and clarifying that Hive is excluded from this listing. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or other behavioral nuances beyond the 'List' operation.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds an important caveat about Hive, with no wasted words.

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 is largely complete for a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema. It names the providers, the data returned, and an important exclusion. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the response format, but the listed details are sufficient for basic understanding.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and the empty input schema is fully self-evident.

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 tool lists third-party arbitration protocols with specific data points (case load, intake URLs, jurisdiction model), using the verb 'List' and a clear resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exact protocols and explicitly excluding Hive, which separates it from other dispute-related tools.

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 gives clear context for what the tool provides, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tools (dispute_check, dispute_route, dispute_today). The 'Hive is not one of them' note provides a partial exclusion but no direct guidance on alternatives.

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