sezzle_detect_duplicate_refunds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds specific detection criteria (duplicate refund IDs or amount/time fingerprints) but does not mention return format, pagination, or edge-case behavior. With annotations providing the safety context, a score of 3 is appropriate for the additional but limited behavioral detail.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action verb 'Detect' and conveys the core purpose without any wasted or redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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?

Despite strong annotations, the tool has a complex input schema (nested arrays of objects) and no output schema. The description is too brief to explain what the tool returns or how the agent should interpret results. Given the complexity, a more complete description would be necessary for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and outputs.

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?

The schema has a single 'orders' parameter with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description refers to 'supplied order evidence,' offering a high-level label, but it does not explain the required structure or highlight relevant fields like refund_attempts, which are critical for duplicate detection. The description insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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's function with a specific verb ('Detect') and resource ('duplicate refund IDs or repeated amount/time fingerprints') in the context of supplied order evidence. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_stuck_authorizations and detect_uncaptured_orders, which target different issues.

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 should be used when duplicate refunds are suspected in order data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The purpose is clear enough to infer usage, but no proactive guidance is given for tool selection among the sibling detection tools.

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