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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides a rollup, implying a read-only aggregation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive or disclose any permissions, rate limits, or data freshness details. It also does not describe the output structure.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key concept '24-hour rollup' and then lists the two data components. It wastes no words and is easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description conveys the core content but leaves out the return format and any indication of when to choose this over sibling tools. It is adequate but not fully contextual.

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 as per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is required.

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 what the tool provides: a 24-hour rollup of flagged-counterparty count and top arbitration providers by active case load. It specifies the resource and scope, and the term 'rollup' distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which likely offer individual checks or routing. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' making it slightly less direct 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (dispute_check, dispute_providers, dispute_route). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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