get_refund

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the return behavior ('Returns full refund record') but does not disclose potential errors, authentication needs, or explicitly confirm read-only nature. For a simple get operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: what the tool does and what it returns.

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 description is sufficient for a simple get-by-ID tool, especially with a complete schema and sibling context. It notes the return type ('full refund record') despite no output schema. However, it could mention that both order_id and refund_id are required, but the schema covers that.

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 detail, but the schema fully documents order_id and refund_id. The description's vague 'by ID' is clarified by the 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 clearly states the tool gets a single refund by ID and returns the full record, distinguishing it from list_refunds. The verb+resource+scope is specific and 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?

The description implies usage when a specific refund ID is known, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_refunds or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The 'by ID' phrasing gives an implied context.

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