zendesk_qa_workspace_disputes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read (get) and requires an API token, but it does not explicitly disclose idempotency, side effects, or safety. The agent can infer it is read-only, but additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior) are missing.

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 with two sentences, no wasted words. The most important information (purpose and requirement) is front-loaded. It is optimally sized for quick comprehension.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it requires (API token), and the key parameters (date range). It does not explain pagination or return structure, but for a basic read operation, it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'date range' which aligns with fromDate and toDate parameters but does not provide formatting or constraints beyond what the schema already describes.

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 'Get disputes for a specific Zendesk QA workspace within a date range.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('disputes for a Zendesk QA workspace'), and the scope is defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zendesk_qa_workspace_reviews or zendesk_qa_workspace_scorecards.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires ZENDESK_QA_API_TOKEN') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear, but there is no exclusion or comparison with sibling tools.

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