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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's real contribution is disclosing the response contents (reason code, amount, deadline, evidence status), which matters because there is no output schema. It still says nothing about not-found behavior, permissions, or any rate/size limits.

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 compact sentences: the operation and its payload first, the raw endpoint second. Nothing is wasted and the most useful information leads.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this covers what an agent needs: the operation, the id format, and the shape of the returned data. Adding error/not-found behavior would make it fully complete, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is documented with its 'dsp_...' format in the schema. The description only repeats that format, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides — the baseline for full coverage.

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+resource (get a single dispute) and even enumerates the returned fields (reason code, amount, deadline, evidence status), which separates it in spirit from checkout_list_disputes. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by 'single ... by id' rather than stated.

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 the 'by id dsp_...' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to checkout_list_disputes for the browse case. An agent can infer the intent but is given no routing guidance.

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