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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description does add useful context by flagging that the response includes the customer's personal data (PII) and by citing the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about auth requirements, not-found behavior, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence listing the payload contents plus the endpoint, with no filler. Every clause contributes either scope or content information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (items, reasons, handling results, customer details). For a one-parameter read tool that is nearly sufficient, though it omits error/empty-case behavior.

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 100% and the schema itself documents the single return_id parameter including its origin (bol_list_returns). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource+scope: a single return fetched by id, with an enumeration of what the record contains (items, reasons, handling results, customer details). This implicitly distinguishes it from bol_list_returns, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"One return by id" implies retrieval-after-listing, and the schema notes the id comes from bol_list_returns, but the description itself offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus bol_list_returns.

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