⚠️ CPA: complaint about a call

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds that the complaint is irreversible and confirmation is required by default, and mentions the rate limit. No contradiction with annotations.

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 (4 sentences), each sentence adds value: purpose, irreversibility/confirmation, prerequisite, alternative and rate limit. No redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could mention return value (e.g., complaint status or ID) but it does not. It hints at confirmation but lacks full detail on what happens after filing. Still fairly complete for a focused tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions callId comes from a preceding call but that is already implied by the required field description.

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 files an external complaint about a CPA call by its callId, with an example of disputing an off-target call. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cpa_create_complaint_by_action_id which handles both calls and chats.

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 provides explicit guidance: when to use (disputing a charge), prerequisite (callId from cpa_get_calls_by_time_v2), alternative for combined complaints (cpa_create_complaint_by_action_id), and a rate limit (1 request/min).

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