disputes_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing the sort order (newest first) and the paging convention (feed the response's next_offset back as offset). It stops short of stating page-size behavior or default limits.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose and ordering front-loaded, then filters, then paging. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, filters, and pagination adequately for a four-parameter read-only tool. The only notable omission is the limit parameter and its interaction with paging.

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 carry parameter meaning. It touches status, party_type, and offset, but says nothing about limit, does not clarify what party_type values represent, and gives no guidance on enum choices, so compensation is only partial.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ("List disputes") and adds ordering ("newest first"), which reads clearly as a collection endpoint distinct from the singular sibling disputes_get. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it stays just shy of a 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?

Filtering by status or party_type and paging via offset are presented as the intended usage, which implies when to reach for this tool versus disputes_get. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this over disputes_deadlines or other dispute siblings, leaving routing to inference.

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