company_refunds

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

The description mentions that supplied proofs are verified and provider effects remain external, hinting at some side effects, but it does not clarify whether advancing refunds is a destructive action or how it affects external systems. Without annotations, this ambiguity is left unresolved.

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 with no redundant words. It is well-structured, though it packs several vague concepts into a short space.

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 7 parameters and lack of schema descriptions, the description is grossly insufficient for correct usage. It does not explain expected input format, output structure, or error handling, making it nearly impossible to invoke 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?

The schema has 7 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. Parameters like project_id, bundle_json, and payload_json are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to construct valid inputs.

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 identifies the resource as refunds and the actions as inspect or advance, which distinguishes it from other company_* tools. However, 'scoped lifecycle' is vague and does not explain what advancing refunds entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like company_revenue or company_payables. It does not state use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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