disputes_deadlines

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it explains the deadline is counted from the recorded sent date so the real date is the same or later, and it explicitly discloses what the tool cannot know (clock start, 15-day extension, furnisher extension), plus a 'not legal advice' caveat. That is exactly the kind of computed-estimate limitation an agent needs before presenting results.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and output contract, and the operational notes (as_of, paging) sit at the end where they belong. The two full statutory citations with URLs are long but arguably earn their place by grounding the 30-day rule; they could be compressed.

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 need not explain return values, yet it still names the key fields and the limitations of the computation. The main residual gap is the undocumented limit parameter and the absence of explicit sibling routing.

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% across three parameters. The description compensates for as_of (YYYY-MM-DD format, purpose of checking another day) and offset (paging via next_offset) but never explains limit or its default of 20, so the coverage gap is only partially closed.

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 uses a specific verb+resource (returns open disputes in draft/sent/response_received states with their statutory response deadline) and enumerates the outputs: days remaining, overdue flag, next action. It is clearly distinct from a plain list tool, though it never names disputes_list as the alternative, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 implied by the content: check deadlines, pass as_of to evaluate another day, page with offset=<next_offset>. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus disputes_list or disputes_get, and no when-not guidance, so the agent must infer the routing.

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