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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the call does not execute a refund, but it does not explain side effects, what happens after the request is submitted, authentication requirements, idempotency, or what the response contains.

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 very short and front-loads the main purpose and the non-execution caveat. The Dutch translation repeats the same content rather than adding new information, but the overall text remains compact.

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?

The description is minimally adequate for a two-parameter refund-request tool with no annotations or output schema. It explains the core action and the important caveat that no refund is executed, but it omits the behavioral details an agent would likely need, such as prerequisites, side effects, and what a successful request produces.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implies that 'agentId' refers to 'this agent' and 'orderId' refers to 'this agent's paid order,' but it does not clarify formats, constraints, or how to obtain the IDs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Request a refund for this agent's paid order.' It also clarifies a key distinction by saying 'The call does not execute a refund,' which helps separate it from an actual refund execution tool. It does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies when to use it by saying it requests a refund but does not execute one. However, it gives no explicit conditions for when to use this versus alternatives like checking order status first, and no prerequisites beyond the phrase 'paid order.'

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