Open dispute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key constraint (configured key must be payer), the objective nature, and the differential handling (escalation vs instant ledger decision). It does not mention side effects or return values, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraints, with no filler. Every sentence contributes meaningful information about purpose, prerequisites, or behavioral outcomes.

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?

The tool involves a moderately complex workflow, and the description covers the main action, role requirement, reasons, and outcome logic. Without an output schema, it lacks information about return values or next steps, and edges like uncontested mechanical claims are left implicit, but overall the description is sufficiently complete.

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 50%, with statement and claimAmount described in the schema. The description adds context around the reason enum and the payer requirement, but does not elaborate on all parameters, leaving the schema to carry some of the weight. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('objective dispute against a counter-signed receipt'), and clearly identifies the role constraint ('as the PAYER'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like submit_dispute_evidence and adjudicate_dispute by defining the action and scope.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: opening a dispute as the payer, with specific reasons. It also explains process outcomes for different reason categories, which helps the agent choose this over submission or adjudication tools, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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