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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond typical descriptions by directly providing the exact policy content (free US shipping, 2-3 day delivery, 30-day returns, etc.), making the tool's output fully transparent. No hidden behaviors or side effects exist.

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 purpose, then a clear trigger list, then the full answer. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified because it contains actionable policy details. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It includes all relevant policy aspects a user might ask about, from shipping and returns to group orders and international coverage, making the tool self-contained and fully understood.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details since the schema is empty. No additional semantics are needed.

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 clearly states 'Return Patchistry shipping + returns policy' with a specific verb and resource. It is instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_contact or list_canvases, and the following list of topics further clarifies its exact scope.

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 description explicitly says 'Use when user asks about' followed by a comprehensive list of trigger topics (shipping time, cost, returns, international, etc.). This directly instructs the agent when to invoke the tool, leaving no ambiguity about its intended use.

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