listar_reembolsos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this filters by user/workspace, whether partial refunds are separated from total refunds in the output, whether pagination exists, how many results are returned, or what format the listed orders take. For a read-list tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single clear sentence in Portuguese that communicates the essential purpose and scope. Efficient and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Could be slightly improved by noting the read-only nature, but there's zero waste in the sentence.

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 straightforward 2-parameter date-range list tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, given there are no annotations and no output schema, it could add value by describing what the returned list contains (order IDs? amounts? status flags for partial vs total?), which would help an agent interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is 100% — both 'inicio' and 'fim' have descriptions naming them as start/end dates with YYYY-MM-DD format. The description's mention of 'periodo' adds the scoping context (results restricted to the date range), aligning with the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't add syntax beyond it.

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 states it lists refunded orders (total or partial) within a period — a clear verb (listar) plus resource (reembolsos/pedidos reembolsados) and scope (periodo). It partially distinguishes from siblings like fluxo_pedido by focusing on refunds, though the exact relationship to buscar_pedido could be clearer.

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 implies usage for listing refunded orders in a date range, which is reasonably clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, nor does it mention differences from fluxo_caixa or recebiveis_periodo which might also cover refund/flow scenarios.

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