list_returns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting order ('newest first'), exact fields returned, and pagination behavior via 'limit'. This goes beyond a minimal listing and gives the agent a good sense of what to expect, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free or authentication requirements.

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 concise sentences: the first enumerates all returned fields, the second explains the pagination. No fluff, high information density, and important details are front-loaded.

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 simple schema (only one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: scope, ordering, fields, and pagination. It lacks explicit mention of error cases or authorization, but that is acceptable for such a straightforward list operation.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully described in the schema ('How many entries to return at most'). The description adds meaning by explaining pagination ('Paginated through – `limit` caps how many come back'), which is not redundant with the schema description, so it earns above the baseline.

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 the action ('Returns...') and the resource ('this account has opened'), with specific details about the content (return number, date, status badge, amount, products). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like list_orders, which cover orders rather than returns.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for listing returns, but does not mention scenarios where another sibling (e.g., list_orders or get_finances) might be preferred, nor any preconditions or context.

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