marketplace_escalate_dispute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that arbitrators will vote on the outcome, which adds some process context. However, it does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether the action is irreversible, any prerequisites (e.g., must be a party to the dispute), potential outcomes, or side effects (e.g., fees, lock-in). The callerAddress parameter description hints at party requirement, but the tool description itself does not state this.

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, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place, providing the core purpose and outcome without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool is a mutation-like action (escalating a dispute) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks critical context such as prerequisites, irreversibility, consequences (e.g., arbitration process timeline), and what the return value might be. The 100% schema coverage covers parameter mechanics but not the overall behavioral context needed for an AI agent to safely invoke 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 the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it states that escalation occurs when automatic resolution is unsatisfactory, which implies the reason parameter should explain dissatisfaction. However, it does not add details about the format or semantics of disputeId or callerAddress beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's function: escalating a dispute to arbitration when automatic resolution is not satisfactory. It identifies the resource (dispute) and the action (escalate), and the mention of arbitrators voting provides some context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like marketplace_open_dispute or marketplace_get_dispute, though the unique action of escalating to arbitration is implied.

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 implies when to use the tool: when automatic resolution is not satisfactory. This is a clear context for usage. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when not to use it (e.g., if dispute is already in arbitration) or related tools like marketplace_get_dispute for checking status.

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