返品処理実行

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool sends a return acceptance email (simulated) and returns an error for ineligible orders. It doesn't detail idempotency, return response structure, or other side effects, but the key behaviors are well covered.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core action in the first sentence and adds important side effects and error handling in the second. No superfluous information is present.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the prerequisite, the main action, the email side effect, and the error condition. It doesn't specify the exact success response format, but for a sample tool it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both required parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'receives return reason' is essentially the same as the schema's description). No additional parameter details are provided.

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: confirming return processing for orders already judged returnable by check_return_eligibility. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing this prerequisite and by specifying the action (confirming the return) and the side effect (sending notification email).

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 provides explicit usage context: it should be used for orders that have passed check_return_eligibility. It also warns that calling it on non-eligible orders results in RETURN_NOT_ELIGIBLE error, implying when not to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose other tools like escalate_to_human.

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