List disputes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description layers on real behavioral detail: the ruling enum semantics (0 void / 1 claimant / 2 respondent, null while undecided), the meaning of hasMore (page + 1 holds more rows), and the failure mode '400 invalid_pagination'. That is well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and use cases before the enum and pagination details, and every sentence carries information. It is dense — the trailing return-shape block is long — but since no output schema exists, that content earns its place rather than being padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return semantics, and it does: it enumerates every field of the returned dispute rows, plus page, limit and hasMore. Combined with the documented error code and ruling codes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 page and limit are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds value by tying pagination to behavior — 'hasMore true means page + 1 holds more rows' — which explains how to use page beyond its raw definition, though it does not restate the 1-100 limit bound.

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 and resource with scope: 'List the disputes this account is a party to, as claimant or respondent, newest first.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tribeunal_get_dispute, which 'returns the whole document', so an agent can pick between list and fetch without opening either 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?

Gives two concrete triggering scenarios — finding a dispute opened against you and recovering a disputeUuid in a new session — and names the alternative (tribeunal_get_dispute) with the condition that selects it. The 'respondent is not emailed' note tells the agent why it must call this rather than wait for a notification.

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