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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds the concrete shape of what is returned, which is modestly useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior for unknown/expired ids.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by a compact list of returned fields and the endpoint. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields returned and identifies the REST endpoint, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret it. Only the sibling-routing guidance is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required 'id' parameter, and the schema itself documents the 'dsp_...' format. The description merely repeats that prefix, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (get), resource (single dispute), the id prefix 'dsp_...', and enumerates the returned fields (reason code, amount, deadline, evidence status). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling checkout_list_disputes by scope.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' – fetch one dispute when the id is known – but it never explicitly contrasts with checkout_list_disputes or says when a detail fetch is appropriate versus a listing. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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