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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that no money moves on its own, the merchant approves first, the signer is the merchant's own non-custodial wallet, the amount is capped server-side, and the recipient is always the stamped payer. It also explains the receipt behavior and the required KYA identity requirement.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the primary action and scope, then covers validation, money flow, ownership, and auth requirements without filler. Each clause contributes unique decision-relevant information.

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 thorough for this complexity: scopes, side effects, auth, partial/full behavior, and approval flow are all present. It does not explicitly describe the return envelope or what an error looks like, and since no output schema exists, that small gap keeps it from a 5.

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?

Although the schema already covers all parameters, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond it: it explains why amount and recipient are absent, clarifies refund_line_itens for partial vs omit-for-full, and notes that receipt verification never gates the refund. This helps an agent understand the boundaries and intent of each parameter.

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 verb and resource: request a refund or return on a DELIVERED order. It clearly scopes the tool to delivered orders, owner-scoped orders, and full-vs-partial refunds, which distinguishes it from cart and checkout lifecycle siblings.

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 gives strong selection signals: only delivered orders, only your own orders, partial vs full refund, and it even states what is NOT an input. It does not explicitly route the agent to alternative tools like cancel_cart or cancel_checkout for non-delivered orders, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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