返品可否判定

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notably explains that expired or already-returned orders yield a normal response with eligible=false rather than an error, which is crucial non-obvious behavior. It does not cover all edge cases (e.g., invalid order ID), but the disclosed behavior is valuable.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the primary function, and the second clarifies the non-error response behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the main logic and the key edge case. It could be more explicit about the response format (e.g., type of eligible field), but it provides enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides full documentation for the single parameter order_id, including type, minLength, and an example. The description merely references '注文ID' without adding new semantic details, so credit is limited to the schema's full coverage.

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 tool's function: given an order ID, it determines return eligibility based on whether the order date is within one month. This distinct verb-resource pairing (判定する + 返品可否) sets it apart from siblings like process_return or lookup_order.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to check return eligibility) and clearly differentiates it from alternatives like process_return by focusing on the determination step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools by name.

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