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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming what the response contains (status, refund and payment details, tracking, courier, returned items), letting an agent judge whether it needs this call.

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?

Two short sentences, payload contents front-loaded and the route appended as supporting context. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden – it does so by enumerating the fields returned. Nothing essential is missing, though a note on error behavior for unknown ids would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Return document id (from sellasist_list_returns)' with an exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, 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 specific verb+resource ('One return document') and enumerates the payload fields it carries, which makes it clearly the single-document fetch counterpart to sellasist_list_returns. It does not name the sibling explicitly, but 'One' contrasts adequately with the list tool.

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 implies usage (fetch details for a known return id) and includes the HTTP route, but it never says when to call this versus sellasist_list_returns, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid id. The workflow hint lives only in the parameter schema.

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