Disputes Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: the required OAuth scope (read_payments) and the pinned API version, both of which affect whether the call succeeds.

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?

Four short lines with the purpose front-loaded, followed by endpoint, scope and version. No filler; could be marginally tighter but every line carries information.

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 read-only single-record fetch with a fully documented schema and covering annotations, this is nearly sufficient. However, with no output schema, the description gives no hint of what a dispute record contains, leaving the agent to discover the response shape blind.

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 all six parameters (including fields, api_version, response_format) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the three path parameters via the endpoint template, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Get a dispute') and the full endpoint path disambiguates it from the sibling disputes_create/update tools by showing it retrieves a single dispute under an order/transaction hierarchy. It falls short of a 5 only because it never names the alternatives in prose.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular resource and path imply a single-record fetch, and the 'Required scope: read_payments' line gives a prerequisite. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus disputes_create/update or a list-style dispute tool.

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