List Refunds

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that results are bounded only when a parameter is provided, but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or default limits. Consistent with the baseline for a read-only tool with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 read-only list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the key constraint for bounding results, though it leaves out details like return format or default limit behavior, which are minor gaps.

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 coverage is 67%: booking_id and since_utc already have descriptions, while limit does not. The description adds the cross-parameter constraint that one of the two is required, which is valuable, but it does not elaborate on limit semantics or add much beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 'List refunds' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_payments and list_deposits. It unambiguously identifies the 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 provides explicit guidance on how to invoke the tool: 'Provide booking_id or since_utc — one is required to keep results bounded.' This gives clear context for usage but does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it.

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