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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-read mutation that is not destructive; the description's 'raise' wording is consistent with that. However, for an on-chain dispute it discloses nothing about costs, bonds/staking, reversibility, or what happens after the dispute is filed.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is largely redundant with the schema, keeping it shy of a 5.

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 three-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the target chain and the required inputs. It omits the dispute lifecycle, prerequisites, and consequences, which an agent needs to invoke this correctly alongside sibling evidence and dispute tools.

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 all three parameters (ipId, evidenceHash, reason) are documented in the schema itself. The description merely echoes two of them, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the structured fields.

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: raising a Story Protocol IP dispute against an asset. This clearly separates it from lookups and read tools, though it does not name the closest siblings (dispute_verification, file_escrow_dispute) to sharpen the boundary.

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?

The second sentence is a parameter instruction ('Provide evidence hash and reason'), not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to raise a dispute versus file an escrow dispute or a verification dispute, nor any prerequisite such as evidence having been committed first.

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