getDisputeById

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and states 'Read-only' plus the rate limit (100 requests per 1m), which are valuable behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not disclose response format or error behavior, but for a simple GET-by-ID tool these are minor gaps.

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 is a single efficient sentence that packs the endpoint, read-only nature, and rate limit without any unnecessary words. Every element earns its place and no reformatting is needed.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core semantics and the rate limit, but with no output schema the response shape is left entirely undisclosed. Minor details about error responses or authentication would make it more complete, but it is adequate for basic 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'id' parameter. It only says 'by ID' without explaining the format, source, or type of the expected identifier, leaving the agent to guess whether it is the dispute ID, payment ID, or some other key.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('dispute by ID'), and includes the explicit HTTP method and endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from listDisputes and other get-by-ID siblings without requiring the agent to inspect the schema.

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 usage when a single dispute ID is on hand, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus listDisputes or other alternatives. The inclusion of the read-only HTTP method gives some context, but no direct exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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