Get MyFatoorah refund details

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints by naming the HTTP endpoint and listing possible refund statuses (Refunded, Canceled, Pending), which helps the agent interpret results. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and endpoint, the second adds useful status context. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple read operation, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description is complete enough for correct invocation; only usage-vs-alternatives context is lightly missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by identifying refundId as the RefundId used for lookup and tying it to the URL path. For a single, self-named parameter this is sufficient additional meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Gets'), the resource (a refund), the lookup key (RefundId), and the exact endpoint (GET /v3/refunds/{refundId}). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like myfatoorah_get_payment and myfatoorah_get_invoice.

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 the tool is used when you have a RefundId and need refund details, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over sibling tools such as myfatoorah_get_payment, myfatoorah_get_invoice, or myfatoorah_create_refund. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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