list_refunds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool returns full refund records with transactions, line items, and adjustments, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, pagination, or permission requirements, though the verb 'list' implies a safe read operation.

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 concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and free of redundant details. Every word adds value.

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?

Given this is a simple 1-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the scope and return content. It could mention pagination or limits, but for a straightforward list-refunds operation, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating that the order_id is required and the purpose. It does not introduce new syntax or additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 lists refunds for a specific order, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_refund (single refund) and list_order_transactions (transactions only) by specifying full refund records and associated data.

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 by requiring an order_id, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. Context is clear that it is an order-scoped list operation, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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