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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful side-effect detail: no refund is issued upon rejection, and the operation refuses already-refunded returns. This aligns with the annotations and provides extra behavioral clarity without contradiction.

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 short sentences and every clause earns its place. It states the action, the prerequisite, and a key guardrail with no redundancy or 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 simple destructive mutation with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: what happens, what is required, and when it will refuse. It does not describe return values, but that is not necessary for this tool type.

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% with both parameters documented. The tool description restates that inspection_notes is required and adds that it is shared with the buyer, but this is marginal extra meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It meets the baseline for high coverage without adding substantial new information.

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 action ('Reject a return'), the specific resource ('return'), and the timing ('after inspection'). It is immediately distinguishable from listing-focused or query tools, and the sibling context includes seller_accept_return, making the intent unambiguous.

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 practical conditions: rejection happens after inspection, inspection_notes is required, and the operation refuses if the return has already been refunded. It does not explicitly mention the alternative seller_accept_return, but the guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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