return_order

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with the description's mention of write operations (create, update, cancel). The description adds operation-level detail (e.g., add_line_item) but does not discuss side effects or auth requirements, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 well-organized with sections (Operations, Args, Returns) and front-loaded with the purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but appropriate for the tool's complexity; a slightly more concise phrasing could improve it.

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's complexity (6 parameters, multiple operations), the description covers the main aspects including operations, parameters, and return format. It does not detail nested objects or all possible data fields, but the output schema is mentioned, and the description is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, so the description provides essential meaning: operation (list of values), pk (order ID), data (dict for write ops), search (text filter), limit (default 25), offset (pagination offset). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states 'Return order lifecycle management in InvenTree' and lists specific operations (read, write) and sub-operations (list, get, create, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like purchase_order and sales_order.

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 lists operations and arguments, providing clear context for when to use each operation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare directly to sibling tools, though the name and context suffice.

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