Returns list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully disclosed. The description adds the pagination trait ('paginated') and the filtering behavior, which are useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations exist. It does not detail pagination mechanics (e.g., next_cursor), but that is documented in the 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List returns...') followed by concise filter guidance. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 paginated list tool with full parameter documentation in the schema and safety covered by annotations, the description is complete enough. It clarifies the buyer-side scope and filtering options. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because it is a list operation, and the description plus schema cover the necessary invocation details.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning all four parameters have descriptive comments in the schema. The description reiterates order_id and status filters but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('returns') with a clear scope: 'authenticated principal filed (buyer-side view)'. It distinguishes from the seller-side sibling tool (seller_list_returns) by explicitly labeling the buyer-side perspective, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('List returns the authenticated principal filed') and explains filter usage ('Filter by order_id to find returns on a specific order, or by status'). It implies the buyer-side view, which differentiates it from seller_list_returns, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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