get_returns_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data it accesses, or any side effects. The brief description adds no behavioral context beyond the name itself.

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 short phrase, which is concise but lacks essential detail. It is front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices completeness for no clear benefit.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the scope of the summary (e.g., time period, marketplace filtering) or what the output contains. For a tool named 'summary', more context is needed.

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 input schema has a 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of the two parameters (days_back, marketplace), leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them effectively.

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 'Summary of returns and refunds' clearly states the tool provides a summary of returns and refunds. It uses a specific noun phrase, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_fba_returns or get_order_finances, leaving ambiguity about whether it focuses on aggregated data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_fba_returns for detailed return data or get_order_finances for refund details. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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