Adjudicate dispute

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly lists side effects—writes a verdict, may create a refund record—and additional traits like deterministic outcome, public recomputability, first-verdict-wins semantics, and the ledger signature in the return value.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action, then cover side effects and return values. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundant or filler wording.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers preconditions, side effects, idempotency, determinism, and return shape. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate consequences.

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 100% with a single well-documented parameter including format and provenance ('as returned by open_dispute'). The tool description doesn't add further parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Trigger deterministic adjudication of an open dispute.' It also distinguishes the tool through deterministic rulebook language and 'no discretion, no model in the loop,' clearly separating it from related dispute workflow tools like open_dispute and get_dispute.

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 description gives clear context: it applies to an 'open dispute' and warns that 'adjudicating twice is not meaningful; the first verdict stands.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use relative to sibling tools, but the precondition and idempotency warning provide solid usage guidance.

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