List Voided Purchases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or how voided status is determined beyond the terse parenthetical. The verb 'list' implies read-only, but key behavioral traits are left implicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical clarification adds value without bloat. It is appropriately sized for a simple list endpoint.

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 list tool, the description is adequate but lean. It defines the key concept (voided purchases) and the schema covers parameters. However, missing usage guidance and behavioral transparency leave notable gaps, especially given the complete absence of annotations. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required here.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides for package_name and max_results. It does not clarify how parameters affect the result set, but the schema sufficiently covers them.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('voided purchases') and adds a parenthetical definition ('refunds, chargebacks'). This distinguishes it from sibling list/fetch tools like list_subscriptions or get_product_purchase. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives like list_subscriptions or get_order, nor any prerequisites such as the required package_name. It only states what the tool does, not when to use it.

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