list_refunds

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

Annotations already declare read-only and open-world hints, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: refunds are separate objects with positive amounts, card/transaction detail is never included, requires PAYMENTS_R, and does not issue refunds. This goes beyond the annotations and sets correct expectations.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary function. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, domain nuance, permission, and non-action. No unnecessary words.

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 list tool with 3 optional params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, defaults, domain specifics, permissions, and exclusions. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description is fully sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% and there are no per-parameter descriptions, but the description clarifies the 'optional date window (default: today, limit 50)', giving meaning to the date_from/date_to and limit parameters. It does not specify date format, but that is a minor gap for a simple list tool.

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?

Clearly states 'List refunds within an optional date window' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining Clover refunds are separate positive-amount objects, not negative payments, and noting card/transaction detail is never included.

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?

Provides clear context: optional date window, default behavior, and explicitly states 'This tool does NOT issue refunds'—a key exclusion. Also notes the required PAYMENTS_R permission. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for related operations (e.g., list_payments), so some guidance is implicit.

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