analytics_refunds

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

It discloses that the tool requires a higher plan, which is a behavioral restriction. However, since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but does not explain what happens if invoked or any other behavior.

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 critical requirement. It is appropriately sized for a gating message, though it lacks substance regarding the tool's purpose.

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 low complexity and no parameters, the description is incomplete because it never explains what 'analytics_refunds' actually does. The agent cannot determine when to use it, only that it is currently unavailable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details and does not do so.

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 does not state what the tool does; it only mentions an upgrade requirement. The tool's function remains unknown, making the purpose missing rather than clarified.

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?

It directs users to 'license_status' to see options, providing a when-not-to-use hint (due to upgrade requirement) but gives no guidance on when the tool should actually be used or functional alternatives.

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