listDisputes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states read-only, includes the HTTP method, and discloses a rate limit of 100 requests per minute. However, it does not disclose response format, default/expected ordering, limit/offset semantics, or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose. The rate limit and read-only details are parenthetical extras that add useful context without redundancy. It is economically written, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 list endpoint with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter semantics, pagination behavior, and response structure. Only rate limit and read-only are covered, leaving agents to guess at invocation details.

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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters: limit, offset, and status. An agent cannot determine valid status values or how limit/offset affect results. This is a critical gap because the schema itself provides no descriptions either.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('disputes'), clearly indicating a collection-read operation. The explicit GET path reinforces the resource and endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with getDisputeById, but the plural resource and list verb make the purpose clear enough to distinguish.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus getDisputeById or other list* siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or pagination/filtering context are offered. The only extra context is the rate limit and read-only nature, which are not usage-selection criteria.

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