file_dispute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an independent re-run rather than a re-vote, that an upheld dispute overturns the verdict and queues a slashable payout against the notary's bond, and that unpaid calls return only the payment requirement. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a paid, consequence-bearing mutation tool.

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 four dense sentences with no repetition or filler. It front-loads the core action, then layers mechanics, consequences, cost, and the no-payment response behavior efficiently.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most essential context: cost, payment protocol, re-resolution semantics, and outcome of an upheld dispute. It explicitly describes the unpaid-call response but does not state what a successful paid call returns, which is a minor gap.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states; the 48-hour constraint and public-ledger visibility are already present in the 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 opens with a specific verb ('Files') and a clear resource ('a bonded dispute against a verdict receipt'), then explains its unique mechanics: re-resolution against the identical resolver spec, not a re-vote. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_receipt or claim_verdict.

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?

The context for use is clear: to dispute a verdict receipt under 48 hours old, with an attached x402 payment. It notes there is no free tier and explains the unpaid-call behavior, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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