tochka_acquiring_payment_refund

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

The destructiveHint annotation already marks this as state-modifying. The description adds valuable behavioral context: precondition (only APPROVED status) and a constraint (amount must not exceed payment amount). No contradictions with 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 extremely concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter details, making it easy to parse.

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's simplicity (two parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, precondition, and parameter constraints. No gaps remain for an agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by defining both parameters: operation_id as the payment operation ID and amount as the refund amount with a constraint. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 function: refund an acquiring payment. It also specifies the status condition ('only for APPROVED status'), which distinguishes it from related tools like create or capture. The verb 'refund' and resource 'acquiring payment' are specific.

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 implicitly provides usage context by requiring APPROVED status, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. It is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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