Open a dispute

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

Annotations only give the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: no funds move now, the claim ships signed order messages copied to the shopper, and a decryption key for the delivery address is transmitted, plus that omitting confirm only previews.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the core action and consequences before the workflow pointer. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant filler.

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 5-param, nested, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, evidence payload, side-effect timing, follow-on calls, and the preview gate. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters (including the claim enum, requested_split shape, and confirm semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the confirm behavior but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('ask the escrow to decide a funded order') and enumerates the triggering conditions (not delivered, wrong item, not released). It also names the downstream siblings (review_ruling, countersign_ruling) so an agent can place it in the dispute workflow.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions and the follow-on sequence ('the escrow later rules a split, which you check with review_ruling and execute with countersign_ruling'). It also clarifies the preview-vs-real toggle, which governs whether it should be invoked at all.

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