Propose how to settle a dispute

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

The description adds important behavioral constraints beyond annotations: the split must sum exactly to the transaction amount, only the counterparty can accept it, and an API key is required. It does not describe what happens after acceptance or rejection, but the key operational constraints are disclosed.

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 three compact sentences with the core action and invariant front-loaded. Every sentence contributes a necessary constraint or prerequisite.

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 simple three-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical split invariant, counterparty acceptance rule, and API-key requirement. It lacks lifecycle details such as proposal expiration or what acceptance triggers, but is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the key invariant for buyer_refund_cents and seller_payout_cents and ties them to transaction amount_cents, though transaction_id is only implied by context and schema pattern.

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 states a specific action and resource: proposing a split of the escrowed amount. It clearly distinguishes this as a settlement-proposal operation rather than accepting or deciding one, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

It provides useful context that only the other party can accept the proposal, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of raise_dispute, respond_to_dispute, or decide_dispute_proposal.

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