chargeback-response

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses output limitations (checklist and preview only, full letter is paid), coverage scope, and includes a legal disclaimer. It does not describe the exact output structure or behavior when optional order details are omitted, but the disclosed context is substantial.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output, the second bounds the coverage, and the third sets expectations about the paid product and legal status. The core purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what will be returned, which reason codes are covered, and important caveats. It is slightly light on how the optional order-detail parameters affect the checklist, but the rich enum descriptions in the schema compensate.

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%: all 7 parameters have descriptions, and the category enum maps values to Visa/Mastercard codes. The description adds only the generic phrase 'order details' and example evidence types, not new parameter-level semantics, so the 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?

The description names the operation ('return'), the input ('chargeback/dispute reason code category and order details'), and the two outputs ('evidence checklist' and 'a preview of the response letter'). This is far more specific than the tool name and leaves little ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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 gives clear context by stating the covered Visa/Mastercard reason codes and clarifies that the full formatted letter is a separate $19 product, so an agent knows not to expect a finished letter here. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tools, but the boundary is clear enough.

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