erc8183_claim_refund

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the refund applies to expired/rejected jobs, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., on-chain transaction, fund transfer), whether it requires ownership, or what happens if the job is not in the expected state. With annotations covering the destructive nature, a mid-score is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler and every word contributes meaning.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the condition (expired/rejected) and the action (claim refund). It lacks any details about expected results or prerequisites (e.g., connection to the job creator), but given the simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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?

The input schema already has descriptions for both parameters (jobId and chainId), with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Claim refund' and a specific resource 'expired/rejected ERC-8183 job'. It clearly states the action and the condition, and the ERC-8183 prefix distinguishes it from the sibling acp_claim_refund.

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 the tool: when a job is expired or rejected. It provides a clear context, but it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of acp_claim_refund' or mention when not to use it. Nonetheless, the 'expired/rejected' qualifier gives adequate guidance for selecting this tool.

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