isw_get_refund_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, or any side effects. Without this, the agent cannot assess safety.

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 extremely concise (6 words) but under-informative. It lacks structure or additional details that would aid understanding, though it does not contain irrelevant 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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not describe what the refund status returns (e.g., possible values, success/failure states), leaving a significant gap for the agent's decision-making.

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 0%, and the description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter name 'refundRef'. The parameter's format, source, or constraints are not explained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to obtain or format the value.

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 'Get refund status by refundRef', specifying the action (Get) and the resource (refund status). It uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings like 'isw_initiate_refund', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contexts. For example, it does not mention that the refundRef must come from a prior refund initiation.

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