GetReturnReasons

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sorting and pagination capabilities, which adds some context beyond basic retrieval. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the return format looks like (especially with no output schema).

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly address core functionality. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond basic inference.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions sorting and pagination, which hints at the purpose of 'order', 'offset', and 'limit' parameters, but doesn't explain 'fields' or provide any syntax, format, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond what can be inferred from parameter names.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of return reasons'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'GetReturnReasonsId' by indicating this retrieves a list rather than a specific item. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-retrieval siblings like 'GetCollections' or 'GetProducts' beyond the resource type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare to sibling tools like 'GetReturnReasonsId' for single items or other list tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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