Disputes get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the specific 404 behavior for role mismatch, which is an important behavioral detail not covered by annotations. No side effects are omitted; it is purely a fetch.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the role/404 nuance efficiently, making it easy to parse.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description states what the response contains ('full evidence trail and timeline') and the error condition (404 for role mismatch). For a simple read operation, this is complete context; no additional information is needed to decide whether to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

The schema already describes dispute_id as 'UUID of the dispute to fetch' with full coverage, so the description does not add much meaning beyond echoing 'by id'. The mention of 'full evidence trail and timeline' relates to output rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one dispute by id', distinguishing it from siblings like disputes_list (which fetches multiple) and disputes_file (which creates). It also specifies the full evidence trail and timeline, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Buyer-side or seller-side caller' and notes the 404 condition when the dispute does not belong to the caller's roles, providing clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate. It also implies use when needing the full evidence/timeline, which separates it from lighter list operations.

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