arbitration__file_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It reveals the action is to file a dispute and opens an evidence window, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies escrow state), authorization needs, rate limits, or return behavior. Minimal transparency.

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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the purpose. Every phrase adds value; the prefix '[arbitration — deterministic dispute rulings]' provides additional context without 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 should hint at return values or errors; it does not. It mentions 'opens the evidence window' but lacks prerequisites (e.g., escrow must exist), error conditions, or sequencing. Adequate but incomplete for a 4-parameter required 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'amount_minor' (cents) and implies distinctness for 'claimant' and 'respondent', but provides no details for 'escrow_id'. This partial coverage is helpful but insufficient to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'File a dispute over an escrow' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'Opens the evidence window' for context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which involve arbitration or dispute filing.

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?

Provides some usage constraints ('Parties must be distinct; amount is in minor currency units'), but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use. Context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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