generate_dispute

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the output is a preview and nothing is persisted/submitted. It does not describe what the preview contains or whether evidence must be pre-uploaded, so it is not exhaustive.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the critical non-submission caveat is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 four-parameter formatting tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential traits: it formats for a city and returns a non-persisting preview. A brief note on what the preview yields (e.g., a form payload to pass to submit_dispute) would close the remaining gap, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 all four parameters (violation_number, city, arguments, evidence_paths) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general notion that output is city-specific, which loosely signals that city drives formatting, but no per-parameter detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Format dispute arguments into city-specific form structure') with an explicit scope boundary: 'Returns a preview — does NOT submit.' This cleanly separates it from the sibling submit_dispute without the agent opening any schema.

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 'does NOT submit' clause strongly implies when to use it (draft/preview) versus the submit_dispute sibling, and the city-specific framing implies a per-city preparation step. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating prerequisites explicitly, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not guidance.

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