List Refunds

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying cursor pagination (before/after by refund ID), which tells the agent how listing is scoped. It does not describe return format, but the absence of an output schema and the read-only nature make this acceptable.

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 verb and resource and adds essential pagination detail. Every word is informative; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only list tool with three optional, well-documented parameters, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource, the pagination mechanism, and the cursor keys. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, so no further behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three optional parameters (after, before, limit), so the description does not need to compensate. The description's mention of 'before/after by refund ID' aligns with the schema's parameter meanings but adds no new information beyond it.

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 identifies the action 'List' and the resource 'refunds', and specifies cursor pagination by refund ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_refund (single retrieval) and create_refund (creation), and from list_payments (different resource).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied by the name and description, but no alternative guidance is provided.

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