get-order-refund-details

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden: 'Get' signals a read operation and the enumeration of refunded items, amounts, restock status, and transactions usefully previews the response shape. However, it does not disclose what happens when an order has no refund, whether the call is permission-scoped, or whether the payload is paginated, which are exactly the gaps annotations would normally cover.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned fields trailing, no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter getter, though the trailing field list is a touch list-like rather than structured.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description does the main job of telling the agent what comes back (items, amounts, restock status, transactions). The remaining omission is the empty-refund case and any authorization requirement, which is a modest gap in an otherwise complete definition.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already documents both the GID and bare-numeric forms of orderId with an example. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed refund info for an order') and enumerates the payload (refunded items, amounts, restock status, transactions), which clearly separates it from mutation siblings like refund-create or order-cancel. It stops short of naming the read siblings it is easily confused with (get-order-transactions, get-orders), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus refund-create or get-order-transactions, nor any precondition such as 'use only after a refund exists on the order'. The only implied usage is that the agent must already have an orderId, which comes from the schema, not the description.

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