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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that the action is to 'prepare a transaction,' implying a preparatory step rather than a final execution, and states the role/time restriction. However, it does not describe side effects, return values, or what happens after preparation, leaving key behavioral details undisclosed.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential constraint information. No redundant or fluff content is present.

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 tool has a simple interface (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and key constraint. However, the phrase 'prepare a transaction' is ambiguous—it does not clarify whether the dispute is executed immediately or requires a subsequent step, leaving some incomplete context.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'jobId' with a clear description ('The job ID to dispute'). The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Prepare a transaction to dispute a job') and the specific resource (a job). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'approve_job' and 'cancel_job' by the unique action '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 description provides explicit usage constraints: 'Only the employer can dispute during the review period.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate (employer role, review period) and implicitly when it is not. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it misses the top score.

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