marketplace_open_dispute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does disclose two important constraints (24-hour window and max open disputes) but does not describe what happens after opening, whether the action is reversible, or any prerequisites beyond the schema fields. This is a clear gap in behavioral transparency.

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, with the action in the first sentence and constraints in the second. Every clause provides useful information and there is no 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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the key selection constraints but omits the post-submission behavior and return value. The complete parameter schema compensates partially, so it is adequate but not rich.

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%, with each parameter already described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics but does not need to given the thorough schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Open' with the resource 'payment dispute for a tool,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling dispute lifecycle tools like marketplace_get_dispute and marketplace_escalate_dispute. It also adds concrete constraints that sharpen the tool's scope.

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?

It provides clear timing ('within 24 hours of payment') and a quota ('Maximum 3 open disputes per user'), giving the agent concrete conditions for when this action is permissible. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative actions like marketplace_report_tool or when not to use this tool, so no exclusions are stated.

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