Record refund

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and a configuration prerequisite; it does not disclose side effects, write behavior, idempotency, validation, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably mutates ledger state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action and context.

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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It only covers the high-level purpose, leaving out parameter semantics and behavioral details required for safe and correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It provides no additional meaning for originalDigest, amount, or reason beyond what the schema labels imply. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Record a refund against a receipt digest in the Tersign ledger.' The verb 'record' plus the resource 'refund' and the context 'against a receipt digest' make it specific and distinct from siblings like issue_receipt and verify_receipt.

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 usage by mentioning a prerequisite ('requires ledger configuration') and a target ('receipt digest'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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