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 the payload contents (status, statements, decision, reasoning), which is mildly useful, but says nothing about visibility restrictions, whether a mediation must be in a particular state, or what happens if the id is unknown.

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?

A single tight noun phrase with no filler. It is front-loaded and economical, though the absence of a verb makes it read as a field list rather than a task statement.

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 low-complexity getter with a full output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers enough to call it correctly, but it omits the usage context and relationship to the escalation/dispute siblings.

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%, so both buyer_token and mediation_id are fully documented in the schema, including that buyer_token comes from create_task and is omittable for the posting buyer. The description adds nothing further, so the 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?

Names a specific resource (a mediation) and enumerates the exact content retrieved: status, statements, decision and reasoning. It does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as get_task or escalate_dispute, which is the only thing separating 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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool rather than get_task, list_messages or appeal_decision, and no prerequisites beyond what the schema implies. The agent must 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.