Get ClickBank refund amounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: the tool converts amounts into the customer's currency rather than returning raw amounts. However, it does not describe the response shape, limits, or any edge-case behavior, leaving some gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action, the refund types, and the currency-conversion behavior without redundancy.

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 preview tool, the description plus schema is minimally adequate, but the lack of an output schema and thin parameter documentation means the agent must still infer what the return value looks like and what receipt/sku mean. More detail would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 only 25%, with only refundAmount having a description. The tool description merely restates the enum values and does not explain how receipt, sku, or refundAmount relate to the conversion, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 names a specific action ('Preview'), a clear resource ('refund amounts'), and a defining scope ('converts in the customer's currency'). It also calls out the three refund types, so an agent can distinguish this from the broad analytics/order sibling tools.

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 word 'Preview' implies the tool is for simulating or calculating a refund before it happens, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what prerequisites apply. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, only an implied use case.

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