Refund status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'from the gateway' merely restates the open-world hint and adds nothing about what happens with an unknown refund_ref, whether statuses are normalized across providers, or the cost of include_raw round-trips.

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 waste, but its brevity is under-specification rather than economy — it omits information an agent needs for a six-parameter, multi-provider call.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description says nothing about the return shape (status values, per-provider normalization) or how the optional identifiers change the result. For a cross-gateway lookup tool with six params, this leaves meaningful 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?

Six parameters at 67% schema coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Two parameters (provider_refund_id, provider_payment_id) have no schema description at all, and the description does nothing to explain when those alternatives to refund_ref should be supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch refund status) plus the source (gateway), which separates it from payments_get_status (payment status) and payments_refund (create refund). It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the refund vs payment wording.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of payments_get_status, payments_refund, or payments_verify_payment, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart of payments_refund purely from the name and description.

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