Open dispute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the payer-key prerequisite, the three grounds, and the different adjudication paths (arbiter vs. instant ledger arithmetic). It does not mention post-submission effects or reversibility, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 with no filler. The purpose and role are front-loaded, followed by reasons and behavioral outcome. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 description adequately covers who can call the tool (payer), the permitted reasons, and what happens after submission (arbiter or instant decision). With no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from a note on side effects or dispute lifecycle, but the core calling context is present and sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the reason enum values but adds no new parameter-specific meaning; the schema already documents receiptDigest, claimAmount, statement, and each reason in detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Open'), a specific resource ('dispute against a counter-signed receipt'), and the required role ('as the PAYER'). The enumeration of reasons and escalation behavior clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_dispute_evidence and adjudicate_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?

Provides clear context: only the receipt payer can open, and the three allowed reasons are enumerated. It also clarifies that non-mechanical claims escalate to the arbiter while duplicate_charge is instant, which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like submit_dispute_evidence or adjudicate_dispute, so it falls short of a 5.

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