refund_fee_previewPreview the fees that would apply before refunding a Booksy Biz basket payment; this read-only check refunds nothing and helps confirm costs first.
Fees that would apply to refunding a payment. Reads only, refunds nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache | |
| basketPaymentId | Yes | Basket payment id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by explicitly stating 'refunds nothing', reinforcing that this is a pure preview and no refund is executed, though it does not mention caching behavior despite the 'fresh' parameter.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the safety clarification follows immediately, making it easy to scan.
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 read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It could mention the return format (fee amounts) or cache behavior, but with no output schema and the essential no-side-effect warning present, it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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 both parameters (basketPaymentId and fresh) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage but merits the baseline score.
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 identifies the resource (fees for refunding a payment) and clarifies it is a preview, though it does not explicitly use a verb like 'calculate' or 'return' and does not differentiate against a specific sibling tool. The resource and scope are still clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from mutation tools.
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 phrase 'Reads only, refunds nothing' implies this is a safe preview rather than an actual refund, which is useful usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like payment_basket or other payment-related siblings, leaving the agent to infer the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.