marketplace_get_dispute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without disclosing that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or how pagination works via the limit parameter. These behaviors are left implicit.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. It conveys both modes of operation without unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description implies that providing disputeId returns details, otherwise a list is returned, but it does not clarify the behavior when no filters are provided, whether state alone can be used, or the response structure. This leaves ambiguity in the list mode.

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 each parameter is already documented (e.g., limit, state, toolId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interaction between disputeId and list mode or default behavior.

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 identifies the resource (disputes) and the two operations: retrieving a specific dispute or listing disputes filtered by user/tool. It distinguishes from sibling tools like marketplace_open_dispute and marketplace_escalate_dispute, which handle different actions on disputes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for read-only lookup, while marketplace_open_dispute or marketplace_escalate_dispute are for creation or escalation. No explicit when/when-not logic is given.

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