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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: the first call does not write, delete, cancel, or send; the second call is the write; confirm_token expires in 5 minutes and works once; and restocking only applies to lines created with restock true. This is exactly the kind of disclosure needed for a destructive mutation tool with two-step confirmation.

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 front-loaded with the action, then immediately covers restock behavior and the two-step token flow. Every sentence carries operational value, including the note that a confirm boolean is ignored and that the token expires and is single-use.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical confirmation flow, non-write first call, write second call, token lifecycle, and restock condition. It does not describe the successful second-call response or error cases, but the core invocation behavior is sufficiently complete alongside the annotations.

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 thoroughly explains confirm_token and mentions restock behavior for return lines, but it does not explain line_id, quantity, or location_id semantics in the nested lines array. The description therefore provides meaningful parameter context but leaves clear gaps.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Receive a return.' It also explains the key receive-time behavior around restocking. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as create_return, cancel_return, or delete_return, so it falls short of the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 two-step confirm_token flow is clearly described, including what the first call does and that the second call with the same arguments plus token is the actual write. This gives strong procedural usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of create_return, cancel_return, or other return-related siblings.

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