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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a simple 'Get'—it does not mention what happens if the Id is not found, whether the company parameter is required, or any other nuances. With annotations present, the description offers minimal added value.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately states the action and the key qualifier. There is no redundancy or filler—every word earns its place. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 straightforward get-by-id operation with only two parameters (both documented in the schema) and annotations covering read-only/non-destructive behavior, the description is adequate. It does not mention the company parameter or error handling, but those are either covered by the schema or low-risk for a read operation. The only gap is not pointing to search_refund_receipts as an alternative when the Id is unknown, which is a minor omission.

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%, with both 'id' and 'company' already explained. The description's mention of 'by Id' aligns with the id parameter but adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full parameter documentation; the description does not enhance it.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'a single refund receipt', and the method 'by Id'. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from search_refund_receipts (which implies searching without an ID) and from create/update/delete operations. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 specifies the key condition: you need an Id to retrieve a single receipt. This clearly indicates when to use this tool over search_refund_receipts, which would be used when an Id is not known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses a small opportunity to guide the agent toward the search tool when an Id is absent.

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