triage_dispute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that days-left is counted from as_of (defaulting to today) and that a recommendation is produced; it says nothing about what data sources are consulted, whether a dispute must already be open, or whether the assessment is deterministic. With annotations doing most of the work, this is a thin addition.

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 capability sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, followed by a compact Args block that only documents what the schema omits. No filler or repetition, though the structured split means an agent must read the whole block to get formats.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and with only two parameters both are documented with formats and defaults. The remaining gap is provenance of dispute_id and the prerequisites of an assessable dispute, which a single clause would have closed.

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 carries the burden and mostly does: it gives the dispute_id format ('e.g. DSP-201') and clarifies as_of as a YYYY-MM-DD date used to count days left, defaulting to today. It could still note where dispute_id values come from (e.g. list_open_disputes), but this is a solid compensation for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Assess') and a specific resource ('one chargeback') and even enumerates the outputs (reason code, evidence on file, win likelihood, fight/review/accept recommendation), which clearly separates it from siblings like list_open_disputes or draft_evidence_pack. It stops short of naming a sibling to route away from, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 'one chargeback' hints that this is the per-dispute follow-up to list_open_disputes, but the description never says when to prefer this over draft_evidence_pack or explain_reconciliation_break. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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