disputes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by flagging that the response carries an evidence deadline and days-remaining, but it omits the default open-only scoping and any pagination/limit 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most decision-relevant detail (deadline pressure) is placed where the agent will see it first.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description should at least state the default filter and rough return shape. It covers the value proposition but leaves the scoping behavior — the thing most likely to cause a wrong call — undocumented.

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%: the single parameter 'open_only' has a default of true but no description anywhere. The description never mentions this filter, so an agent could wrongly assume it returns all disputes, including closed/paid ones. With low coverage the description was obliged to compensate and does not.

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 names the resource precisely ('Stripe disputes (chargebacks)') and the payload that matters ('evidence deadline and days left to respond'), which is more than most sibling names convey. It lacks an explicit verb (list vs. detail) and never contrasts itself with siblings like receivables or payables, but the scope is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus siblings, no prerequisites, and — critically — no mention that the tool filters to open disputes by default. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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