ebay_get_refunded_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, does not issue refunds, does not call Post-Order API, and requires specific OAuth scopes. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no refunds are found (empty array vs null). The description compensates reasonably for the missing annotations.

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 very concise: two short sentences plus an OAuth scope line. Every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy. The structure front-loads the core purpose and then adds important constraints.

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 read-only filter tool, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavior, API used, and OAuth requirements. No output schema exists, so the note about returning orders with non-empty refunds array is helpful. However, it could be more complete by explaining what happens when no refunds are found or providing a minimal example.

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% (both filter and maxResults have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it mentions the default maxResults value (50) and that filter is optional. No additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Hence, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Scan recent seller orders for refunds.' It specifies the API used (Fulfillment API getOrders) and the condition for return (non-empty paymentSummary.refunds array). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ebay_get_orders (which returns all orders) and ebay_issue_refund (which issues refunds).

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 explicitly labels the tool as a 'read-only helper' and clarifies it 'does not issue refunds or call the Post-Order API.' It also lists required OAuth scopes. While it doesn't directly contrast with alternatives like ebay_get_orders, the context of scanning for refunds implies when to use it. More explicit when-not-to-use guidance would improve this dimension.

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