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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: a hard 31-day window per call, offset/limit paging, and the actual POST endpoint. This tells the agent more than the annotations alone.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the hard constraint and paging behavior, then the endpoint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 still conveys the key operational facts an agent needs: date inclusivity, the 31-day ceiling, and offset/limit paging. It lacks any note on what the response contains or next_offset handling, but the schema covers the latter and overall it is sufficient.

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 limit, offset, and the date fields are already documented in the schema. The description restates the paging mechanism and date inclusivity but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 ('Refunds between two dates') with the key scoping constraint (inclusive, by date). It is clearly distinct from qgiv_get_refund and qgiv_list_recent_refunds by virtue of the date-range filter, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 31-day-per-call cap and paging hint imply usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance vs. qgiv_list_recent_refunds or qgiv_list_transactions_by_date. Usage is left to inference from the date-range framing.

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