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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the requirement that the caller must own the agent_id, which is useful authorization context, but it does not go further into behavior such as error conditions or ownership verification.

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?

Two short sentences carry the core purpose and the one requirement that matters for invocation. Every word earns its place, with the main action front-loaded before the authorization note.

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 simple read-only query with fully described parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the resource and the key authorization requirement. The only notable omission is guidance about when to choose it over sibling order tools, but schema and annotations carry the remaining load.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents order_id, agent_id, and session_token. The description reinforces the agent_id ownership requirement but adds no meaning beyond the parameter descriptions, matching the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 names a specific resource — refund/chargeback/report paths — and pairs it with an order, so an agent can tell it is about retrieving dispute-related information. It lacks an explicit verb ('get' appears only in the title), and it doesn't name a sibling it is not, but the scope is unambiguous enough for the tool's simple purpose.

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 only guidance is the authorization prerequisite 'Requires owning agent_id,' which is a precondition rather than a selection rule. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over order_events, order_track, or order_list, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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