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

No annotations provided, so the description fully describes behavioral traits: the dispute triggers an independent re-run, overturns verdict on uphold, triggers slashable payout, and is paid (no free tier). It also explains behavior without payment. Rate limits or auth are not covered, but the description is thorough.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then explains behavior and consequences in efficient sentences, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the dispute process, side effects (overturning verdict, slashing payout), payment requirement, and behavior without payment. Slightly more could be said about return values, but it suffices.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (agent and receipt_hash) clearly. The tool description adds context about the dispute process and payment but does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states the tool files a bonded dispute against a verdict receipt, explains the process (re-resolution, not re-vote), and distinguishes from siblings like claim_verdict by its specific action and consequences.

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 tells when to use the tool (to dispute a verdict receipt) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like claim_verdict. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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