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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the default ordering ('most-recently-modified first'), which matters for stable pagination, and the underlying endpoint (GET /disputes). It does not discuss rate limits or how filtering interacts with pagination.

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 with zero filler; scope and sort order are front-loaded, and the endpoint mapping is a compact trailing clause that earns its place for API-literate agents.

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 read-only, fully-documented, zero-required-parameter list tool, the definition covers purpose, ordering and endpoint adequately. The main omission is any hint about the result envelope or total-count/pagination shape, which no output schema supplies.

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%, so all 8 parameters (from/to, skip, limit, statuses, entity_ids, payment_id, this_channel_only) are already documented with formats, defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('List disputes'), clarifies the synonym ('chargebacks'), and notes scope ('against your business'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling checkout_get_dispute, but 'List' vs 'get' is reasonably self-evident.

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?

'With optional filters' implies browsing/filtering is the use case, and the sort order hints at recency-driven review. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer checkout_get_dispute for a single dispute, and no stated prerequisites.

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