get_returns

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the authenticated-seller scope, the linked-claim relationship, and notably that accounts without returns may raise an API error that is surfaced gracefully. It stops short of covering auth/permission requirements or rate limits, so not a 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, return contents, and edge cases in tight succession. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields (return id, claim id, order id, status, creation date), documents pagination, and flags an error edge case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and already documents limit, offset, and status in detail. The description's mention of 'paginated with limit/offset' largely restates the schema and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the authenticated seller's product returns'), including the Portuguese term devoluções and the claim linkage, which separates it from sibling tools like get_claims and get_orders.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Use this to track return requests and their statuses') and routes to the complementary get_claim_detail for full context. No explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the sibling routing is strong.

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