square_list_refunds

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, pagination, rate limits). The routing info is generic and does not help the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 short but lacks essential detail; it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence is either generic (routing info) or tautological (restating name).

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 no annotations and a single parameter with no description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain input format, output schema (though one exists), or usage scenarios, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaningful semantics. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify what arguments are valid or how to use them.

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 only restates the tool name as 'Square connector operation list_refunds' and adds generic routing info. It does not specify what listing refunds entails (e.g., scope, filtering) or distinguish from sibling tools like square_list_payments or square_create_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about the intended use case or prerequisites.

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