disputes_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a content preview (letters written, history, due date) that helps an agent judge whether this call returns what it needs, but says nothing about the identifier requirement, not-found behavior, or size of the returned record.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the value proposition (what the record contains) immediately after. No filler, though it is a fragment rather than a full sentence.

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 return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the read-only profile. For a one-parameter lookup tool the description is close to sufficient; the only missing piece is any statement about the required identifier.

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 0% for the single required `id` parameter, so the description carries the burden and only implies that one dispute is identified, without stating that `id` is a dispute identifier or its format. The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, which keeps this from being a serious 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?

States a specific retrieval of 'the full record for one dispute' and enumerates the content (details, due date, letters written, history), which distinguishes it from the list-style sibling disputes_list. It never names a sibling outright, so differentiation is inferred from the singular framing 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus disputes_list, disputes_deadlines, or disputes_update, and no preconditions or exclusions are given. The only signal is 'one dispute', which weakly implies single-record retrieval by identifier.

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