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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals the state transition (approved → received) and the asynchronous, idempotent refund behavior via the webhook flow. It also implies the prerequisite that the parcel was inspected, which is not captured in the annotations. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the action and its precondition, the second gives the state transition and the downstream refund behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the state effect, and the important refund consequence. It is slightly light on explicit failure/alternative conditions, but the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions already fully document return_id and inspection_notes. The tool description adds operation-level context but does not provide additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Acknowledge') and resource ('return'), and immediately clarifies the exact meaning: the seller confirms the returned parcel arrived and was inspected. It also defines the precise state transition (approved → received), which distinguishes this from sibling tools like seller_reject_return or returns_get without needing to inspect schemas.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when a returned parcel has arrived and been inspected, and the return is in the 'approved' state. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the state machine context gives sufficient guidance for an agent to select it over reject/initiate tools.

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