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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the data (windows broken down by five named gateways and three card networks), which tells the agent this is static reference content rather than per-merchant data. It says nothing about freshness (whether it reflects current network rules), jurisdiction variance, or return format.

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?

One sentence, no filler, dimensions front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, so the operation is left implicit, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter reference tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the data is keyed by but not what a record contains (e.g., number of days, whether values are calendar or business days). That omission matters for a deadline lookup, where the unit and format are the whole point.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration of gateways and networks is the relevant scoping information and is communicated.

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 a specific resource (chargeback response windows) and its granularity (per gateway, per card network), which clearly separates it from the reason-code siblings. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, so it never states the operation (retrieve/list), but the get_ prefix and the enumerated dimensions leave little ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a passive reference lookup rather than part of an active chargeback workflow.

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