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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: funds remain held pending a human reviewer's decision. It omits required permissions, whether the dispute can be withdrawn or reversed, how long review takes, and what the caller receives back.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then the consequence, then the input requirement. Nothing is redundant and every sentence adds 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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger and the funds-held consequence well, but omits outcome (what a successful dispute returns), eligibility, and reversibility. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to act confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: 'a submitted quest' constrains quest_id to an already-submitted quest, and 'Give a specific reason' signals that reason should cite the unmet instruction rather than be generic. It still gives no format or length expectations for either field.

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?

States a specific verb ('Dispute') and a precisely scoped resource ('a submitted quest whose proof does not meet the instructions'), which distinguishes it from create_quest or get_quest. It does not name approve_quest as the contrasting action, so the sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 trigger condition is clear: use it when submitted proof fails to meet the instructions. However, it never states the inverse (when to approve instead), who is eligible to dispute, or whether a quest can be re-disputed after resolution, leaving the agent to infer the boundary with approve_quest.

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