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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing the internal checks and explicitly stating that the tool never automatically chooses a refund or resolution, which is beyond what the annotations convey.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the key checks and a critical behavioral constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 routing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what it checks, and what it will not do. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing how it relates to the more general route_case sibling, but this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide domain-level meaning by referencing the seller, the two-year period, the 24/12-month presumption, the 30-day benchmark, and secondary remedies. However, it does not explain the structure of the facts object or the as_of parameter, leaving much of the parameter semantics to inference.

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 is specific: it routes a refusal of the legal guarantee of conformity or a referral to the manufacturer. It names the exact legal scenario and the checks performed, making it easy to distinguish from sibling routing tools like route_marketplace_case or route_subscription_case.

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 first sentence clearly states the triggering context: a refusal of a legal guarantee of conformity or a referral to the manufacturer. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with route_case, leaving some ambiguity about edge cases.

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