Get dispute record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (evidence, verdict, rationale, ledger signature) and implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch,' but it doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately lists the included data elements, making it highly efficient.

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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states what is fetched and what the response will contain. However, it omits context like what a 'ledger signature' is or any failure modes, which would be helpful for full completeness. Given the tool's simplicity, a 4 is appropriate.

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% and the description does not explain the 'disputeDigest' parameter beyond its name. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to explicitly state that the digest identifies which dispute to fetch, leaving the agent to infer the connection.

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 clearly states the tool's verb ('Fetch') and resource ('dispute record'), and enumerates the returned contents (evidence, verdict, rationale, ledger signature). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_dispute (creation) and adjudicate_dispute (modification).

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 use case is implied—use to retrieve a dispute record—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. The description provides basic context but lacks direct exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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