generate_return_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context against a name that sounds like a write operation: "Never sends it" tells the agent this only produces a draft and no request is transmitted. It still doesn't say whether the draft is persisted or only returned, so it falls short of 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the critical non-sending constraint is stated up front rather than buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations plus the "never sends" note cover the safety profile. Still missing for a drafting tool: whether the draft is saved, what "confirmed fields" means, and any per-parameter meaning, leaving the definition minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 description must carry the burden for three parameters. It names the four kinds, which loosely maps to the `kind` enum, but says nothing about `reason` or `purchase_id` beyond the ambiguous phrase "confirmed fields" — that gap is what the purchase_id refers to is never made explicit.

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?

Specific verb ("Draft") plus a concrete resource set (return, refund, warranty, replacement request), which no sibling tool covers. However it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_warranty_status or update_purchase_status, and "from confirmed fields" is left undefined.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a purchase_id must already exist, likely from get_purchase_details), and names no alternatives. The only usage-adjacent statement is "from confirmed fields," which implies but never states that input data must already be validated.

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