list_order_refunds

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which indicates a safe read operation. The description adds context about the returned data (refund amounts, reasons, who processed them) and a behavior hint about requesting only needed fields. It does not introduce any destructive implications, and it is consistent with the read-only annotation.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, and the second gives a practical usage hint. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return content (amounts, reasons, who processed them) and the ability to select specific fields. Pagination is documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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% for all parameters, including order_id, page, per_page, and fields. The description adds a usage tip ('Use fields param to request only needed fields') but does not provide semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema, such as the meaning of fields or pagination defaults.

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 'List all refunds for an order' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_orders, list_order_notes, create_order_refund, and delete_order_refund. The additional detail about showing amounts, reasons, and processors further clarifies its purpose.

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 usage when you need refund details for an order but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., create_order_refund or delete_order_refund). There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools, only a parameter tip about the fields parameter.

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