Disputes list

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description does not add extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but it does not contradict them either. Since annotations are present, the baseline is appropriate.

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 concise, containing only necessary information in a single sentence. It effectively communicates the purpose and filtering capability without any irrelevant details.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and clearly distinguishes buyer/seller sides. It does not describe the response format, but since there is no output schema and this is a straightforward list endpoint, the omission is minor and acceptable.

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 provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (cursor, status, page_size), including enum values and default ranges. The tool description does not add additional parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline is correct.

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 tool's purpose: listing disputes for the authenticated principal, with explicit clarification of buyer-side vs seller-side disputes. This is specific and actionable, and the verb 'list' is 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 implies when to use the tool (to get a list of disputes) and provides a filtering option by status. It does not explicitly contrast with disputes_get (single dispute) or other dispute-related tools, but the list vs. single distinction is generally clear from the context.

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