Get dispute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing payload scope (requests, deadlines, evidence history) and freshness ("current state"), which matters because there is no output schema — though it omits auth or identifier-validity notes.

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 core action leads and the returned content follows. Every clause contributes.

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 simple single-item read with a full safety annotation set and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the resources involved. The only notable gap is the absence of any identifier provenance or error behavior.

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 single required parameter payment_dispute_id gets no explanation of format, source, or constraints. "One dispute" only weakly implies that an identifier must be supplied; the description adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema's property name and maxLength.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get one dispute") and scopes the result to current state plus requests, deadlines and evidence history. A sibling list_disputes exists, and the singular "one dispute" implies retrieval by identifier versus listing, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you fetch a single dispute when you have an identifier and need its detail. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to list_disputes for discovery versus this tool for detail.

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