Submit dispute evidence

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses important behavioral prerequisites: evidence must be signed by the payer key for claimants, and respondent evidence additionally requires the seller API key (TERSIGN_LEDGER_API_KEY). It also states the open-dispute precondition. It does not explain the outcome or error behavior, but the disclosed auth and state constraints are material and go beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences are front-loaded with the core action, followed by critical role-specific requirements. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nontrivial artifacts parameter, the description covers core purpose and auth prerequisites, but it omits details about expected artifact structure, return/confirmation behavior, and explicit relationship to sibling dispute workflow tools. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer some invocation details.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the schema by explaining role-specific signing requirements and that evidence is signed. However, it does not explicitly explain the disputeDigest parameter or the structure/semantics of the artifacts array, and since schema description coverage is 0%, this gap is more noticeable. The role and signing context is helpful, but parameter guidance remains incomplete.

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 ('Submit') and identifies the exact resource ('signed evidence' to an 'open dispute'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like open_dispute, adjudicate_dispute, and get_dispute. It also incorporates role-specific signing constraints, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: to submit evidence to an open dispute. It also provides role-based conditions (claimant vs respondent) and the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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