ingrammicro_search_returns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about searchable criteria and the downstream use of the result, but it does not discuss pagination or result behavior beyond that, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the follow-up instruction about calling ingrammicro_get_return earns its place by clarifying the tool's purpose in the workflow.

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?

The description covers the essential workflow for a search tool: find returns and retrieve the case_request_number for use in a follow-up call. All 9 parameters are documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so the only minor gap is that the description does not enumerate every possible search key.

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%, so every parameter already has a clear description. The description references invoice, product, and status filters, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Search', and names a concrete resource: 'return (RMA) requests'. It also lists meaningful search dimensions — invoice, product, or status — and clearly separates this tool from ingrammicro_get_return by presenting it as the prerequisite lookup step.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use this tool to find the exact case_request_number before calling ingrammicro_get_return. This establishes a clear retrieval workflow and identifies the relevant sibling tool to use next.

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