List disputes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot express: the enrollment prerequisite and the important ambiguity that an empty list may mean the account is not enrolled, which prevents a false 'no disputes' conclusion.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb/resource and filter axes before moving to domain states, pagination mechanics and the enrollment caveat. Little padding, though the state enumeration slightly duplicates the schema enum.

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 15-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool with annotations already covering safety, the description supplies the crucial extras an agent needs: pagination protocol, enrollment precondition and the empty-result caveat. The remaining gap is that several filter parameters (merchant_ids, payment_transaction_ids) are not characterized anywhere.

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 only 40% across 15 parameters, so the description must carry weight. It does add meaning for cursor usage (pass pagination.last_item as starting_after) and enumerates the valid state values, but it omits explanation of merchant_ids, order_ids, payment_transaction_ids, size, sort_by and the four date-range boundaries, leaving nearly half the surface undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (customer disputes) and enumerates the filter axes (order, state, reason, purchase reference, date ranges), so the agent immediately knows this is the multi-item search endpoint. It does not name get_dispute as the singular alternative, so differentiation from the sibling is left to inference rather than stated.

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?

Gives real operational context: the merchant account must be enrolled for the Disputes API, and an empty result can indicate non-enrollment rather than zero disputes. It also explains the cursor flow. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-get_dispute rule, but the list/fetch distinction is implied by the pagination guidance.

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