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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behavioral traits: escalation to HiveLaw arbitration if unresolved, and settlement held in escrow until resolution. This goes beyond a simple 'open a dispute' and gives the agent useful expectations about side effects, though it does not cover all possible nuances like cancellation or permissions.

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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that lead with the main action and then provide essential process context. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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 complexity (4 params, no output schema) and the absence of annotations, the description covers the overall workflow adequately: initiating a dispute, escalation, and escrow. It does not explain the immediate return value or any preconditions, but the included context is valuable and largely sufficient for a straightforward dispute initiation action.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the specific action ('Open a dispute on an invoice') and the resource (invoice). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trade_create_invoice and trade_get_invoice by focusing on dispute resolution, not creation or retrieval.

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 clear context about when this tool is used (when a buyer and supplier have a dispute that they cannot resolve) and what happens next (routing to HiveLaw arbitration, escrow). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an AI to select it over the sibling tools.

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