orders_refund

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires a higher plan, which is a behavioral constraint, but it says nothing about the tool's core behavior, side effects, or what happens when called without the upgrade. This is minimal value beyond the name.

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, short sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It conveys only an upgrade gate, not tool functionality, so it fails to earn its place as a useful description.

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?

Although the tool has no parameters or output schema, the description is completely inadequate for understanding what the tool does or how to invoke it correctly. It only tells the agent that an upgrade is needed, leaving the purpose and behavior entirely unexplained.

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 schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not mislead about parameters, and there is nothing to add. Baseline 4 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?

The description never states what the tool actually does (refund orders). It only provides an upgrade requirement, which is a meta-message rather than a functional purpose. This does not distinguish it from sibling tools beyond the name.

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 not be used until a higher plan is obtained, and it suggests checking 'license_status' for upgrade options. However, it gives no guidance on when the tool would be appropriate to use or how it compares to alternative order-related tools like orders_cancel or orders_create.

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