report_warehouse_import_refund

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The description is too brief (one sentence) and omits critical information: what the report returns, authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or whether it's read-only.

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 (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential details, making it unhelpful for an agent.

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 tool has 8 parameters, a rich sibling context, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention output format, pagination, filtering scope, or how it differs from similar reports.

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 low (25% only for 'q' and 'include'). The description adds no meaning to parameters like start_date, end_date, warehouse_id, sku_sku, limit, page. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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?

Description states it's a report for refund/returned stock, which clearly identifies the resource. The verb 'report' and resource 'refund/returned stock' are specific. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'report_warehouse_import', though the name helps distinguish.

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. There are many report siblings (e.g., report_export_by_order, report_warehouse_import) without any contextual tips or exclusions.

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