sap_fetch_dispute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch') but omits details about side effects, permissions, or whether the dispute PDA is mutable. The lack of any behavioral disclosure beyond the verb is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without superfluous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'V2 dispute PDA' is in the context of the system, nor does it describe the return value or any relationship to other dispute-related tools (e.g., sap_file_dispute_v2). The lack of output schema further burdens the description, which it fails to address.

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% with a parameter description already present. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, constraints, or how to obtain the PDA). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 'Fetch a V2 dispute PDA', specifying the action and resource. It is direct and unambiguous, but does not provide differentiation from sibling tools like sap_fetch_escrow_v2 or sap_fetch_session, relying on the tool name for context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about the intended workflow. The description simply states the action without any usage hints.

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