calculateRefundEligibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states read-only and no action execution, and mentions the required role. Missing details such as error handling or data source, but the core behavioral trait (read-only) is well communicated.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose immediately, and the second adds the read-only nature and role requirement. No unnecessary words.

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 the low parameter count, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and prerequisites. It could be enhanced by stating what the output contains (e.g., 'returns eligibility boolean and max amount').

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% as both parameters (orderId and callerToken) have descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool checks refund eligibility and maximum amount, using a specific verb ('consulta') and resource ('pedido'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like requestRefundApproval, which performs the actual refund, and createSupportTicket, which has a different purpose.

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 specifies the required role (AGENT) and explicitly states the tool is read-only, implying it should be used before requestRefundApproval. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use or compare to other siblings beyond the role and readonly hint.

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