process_claim

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the action is manual and requires evidence review, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, reversibility, or state changes (e.g., closing dispute permanently).

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?

The description mixes German and English, leading to redundancy and slightly awkward flow. While informative, it could be more concise and structured with cleaner language separation.

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?

The description covers parameter details and manual workflow hint, but lacks return value info, prerequisites (e.g., dispute status), and error conditions. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete without output schema.

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 0%, but the description provides complete parameter documentation: meaning of dispute_id, enum values for resolution, and range/default for buyer_pct. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool resolves an open dispute and distributes escrow funds. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like auto_resolve_expired by requiring manual input after evidence review.

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 description implies manual use after evidence review, providing context but not explicitly stating when to use vs alternatives like auto_resolve_expired. No direct exclusions or comparisons.

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