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

Annotations already establish readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds real value: it discloses the live Shopify lookup, the `permission: missing` condition meaning the store withheld returns permission, and reinforces 'Changes nothing'. It stops short of rate-limit or auth details, but coverage is strong.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the live-check framing, then a tight enumeration of returned facts. The single compound sentence is dense but every clause carries information; the trailing 'Changes nothing' is a useful safety note rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return contents, and it does so thoroughly (per-line quantities, rule blocks, reasons, policy, open-return flag, permission-missing case). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 both parameters are already documented with their origins (get_conversation_orders/lookup_orders and find_conversation). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (return eligibility) and then details exactly what is returned per line: returnable quantity, rule blocks, return reasons, policy applied, and open-return status. This clearly distinguishes it from write siblings like refund_order and cancel_order.

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?

Provides clear context for when it applies: verifying what can be returned on an order originating from a conversation, live against Shopify. It does not name alternative siblings or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous.

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