Submit dispute evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals signing requirements and the respondent's additional TERSIGN_LEDGER_API_KEY need, but it does not mention side effects, whether submissions can be amended, idempotency, or what happens once evidence is accepted.

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?

Two tight sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional key-requirement detail is compact but essential.

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 input schema is rich and covers parameters thoroughly, but there is no output schema and no description of the response, submission lifecycle, or whether multiple submissions are allowed. For a write-style tool with no annotations, an agent still lacks closure on what happens after the call.

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 schema already documents parameters, but the description still adds value beyond it. It ties the 'role' enum to concrete key requirements and clarifies what 'signed evidence' means operationally, which directly informs correct parameter selection.

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 starts with a specific verb and object — 'Submit signed evidence' — and qualifies it with 'to an open dispute,' making the tool's role unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_dispute, get_dispute, 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?

The phrase 'open dispute' provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate, and the role distinction explains the two filing sides. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as before a dispute is opened or after adjudication.

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