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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the possible status values, the presence of tx_hash only once paid, the need to verify the transaction on-chain before treating a refund as confirmed or deleting the workspace, and the meaning of 'rejected' (amount credited back to the balance, not lost).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place: one defines the purpose, one specifies required credentials and the verification caveat, and one clarifies the rejected-state semantics. No filler or repetition.

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 covers purpose, credential requirement, output semantics, and important post-verification behavior. Although an output schema exists, the description still explains the meaningful status values and the on-chain verification requirement, giving an agent everything needed to use the tool correctly in the refund workflow.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that the api_key must be the owner_key rather than a sub-key, which is a meaningful operational constraint not explicitly stated in the description field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of every refund request ever made for a workspace.' It also explicitly ties the tool to its counterpart, 'aanet_request_refund', making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling getters like get_workspace or get_activity.

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 clear context: this is 'the way to find out whether an aanet_request_refund call actually got paid.' It also notes that Owner_key is required, which is an important precondition. It does not name alternatives to avoid or explicitly state when not to use it, but the use case is concrete enough.

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