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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description usefully adds that payment is held for review, a real consequence beyond the structured fields. However it omits whether the dispute is reversible, what happens after review, and any permission/precondition details relevant to a mutation.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the consequence following. Nothing superfluous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the payment-hold effect is stated. What is missing is routing context among the many sibling resolution tools, leaving the definition adequate but not complete for a mutation of this weight.

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 id, reason, and buyer_token are already fully documented, including the conditional 'not needed if you are the buyer member'. The description adds nothing further, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 resource (a delivered task), so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like request_redo or escalate_dispute, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to dispute versus request_redo, escalate_dispute, propose_settlement, or appeal_decision, all of which sit in the same problem-resolution family. The agent is left to infer the trigger condition entirely.

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