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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the default sort order by last-modified. However it says nothing about pagination semantics, result-size behavior, or rate limits, so it is a modest addition rather than rich disclosure.

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 the scope and ordering front-loaded before the trailing 'Checkout.com: GET /disputes.' The endpoint reference is marginally useful rather than essential, but nothing is bloated or buried.

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 eight optional parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description does not convey what a returned dispute record contains, how large result sets behave, or when pagination via skip/limit becomes necessary. It is adequate to select the tool but incomplete for confident invocation.

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 every parameter is already documented with format, bounds, and defaults in the schema. The description only alludes to 'optional filters' generically and adds no syntax, combination rules, or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 (List) and resource (disputes), clarifies the domain synonym (chargebacks), and pins down the ordering (most-recently-modified first) plus the presence of optional filters. An agent can immediately separate it from the singular checkout_get_dispute sibling.

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 'optional filters' and by the fact that this is the collection endpoint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no direction on which filters matter for which scenario, and no stated alternative (e.g. use checkout_get_dispute when you already have an id).

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