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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the refusal condition for non-seller-owned returns and the disclosure that the response includes the refund ledger and inspection notes. This is meaningful context for a read-only fetch.

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 tight sentences: the first names the action, resource, and returned contents, and the second states the key refusal condition. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what is fetched, what fields are returned, and under what condition the call fails. The rich annotations cover safety semantics, and the simple schema covers input semantics, so nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single parameter return_id is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond implying that a single return is fetched by identifier, which is baseline-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 opens with the specific verb 'Fetch' and the exact resource — 'a single return filed against one of the bound seller's orders' — and lists the data categories it returns (reason, status, restocking fee, inspection notes, refund ledger). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like seller_list_returns (list) and returns_get (general return fetch) by emphasizing the seller-owned order 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?

The tool's scope is clear: it only applies to returns on the bound seller's own orders, and it refuses otherwise. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as returns_get for non-seller returns or seller_list_returns for listing, so an agent must infer when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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