Seller get return

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

The description explicitly mentions it fetches a single return and lists the response fields, plus the refusal condition, giving a clear behavioral picture. This aligns with the readOnly and idempotent annotations, and no contradictory side effects are implied.

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, using two sentences to cover purpose, scope, result contents, and a refusal condition without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description enumerates key fields in the response, so an agent knows what to expect. The input is fully described, and the refusal condition adds important context for handling edge cases.

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?

The only parameter (return_id) has a clear description of its format (UUID) and purpose, and the tool description explains that it refers to a return on a seller-owned order. This provides sufficient meaning beyond the schema alone, though it could be slightly more explicit about the relationship to the seller context.

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 specifies the action (fetch), the subject (a single return against a seller-owned order), and the specific information returned (reason, status, restocking fee, inspection notes, refund ledger), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from other return-related tools.

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?

It states the scope (bound seller's orders) and the refusal condition (if not on a seller-owned order), which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'returns_get' or 'seller_list_returns', though the context signals provide those siblings.

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