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

Although no annotations are provided, the description clearly discloses that the operation is NOT idempotent (one complaint per order), advises confirming with the user before calling, explains the review timeline (3 days) and auto-refund behavior, and notes the requirement for an API key. This goes beyond the schema to cover critical behavioral traits.

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 dense but well-structured with a clear lead sentence, then prerequisites, when-to-use, and alternatives. The bilingual repetition is redundant for English-only agents but not harmful; overall it front-loads the most critical constraints (idempotency, confirmation) and remains compact given the complexity.

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?

Given the tool's side effects (auto-refund, non-idempotent), the description fully covers prerequisites, timing, follow-up steps, and safety warnings. With no output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values; the provided behavior and usage guidance are complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions already. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning but reinforces that order_code must be delivered and faulty, and that reason examples are provided. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful constraint context, justifying a 4.

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 explicitly states the tool files a complaint/warranty-refund request for one delivered order, and clearly distinguishes it from related tools like check_order_status by specifying it's for faulty items vs. stuck orders. The verb 'file a complaint' and resource 'warranty-refund request' are specific and 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions (item wrong/dead/login-fails/short quantity), when-not-to-use (if order looks stuck, use check_order_status instead), and names the alternative tool to prefer. Also gives a prerequisite (delivered and genuinely faulty) and a follow-up action (track via check_order_status).

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