get_refund_policyRetrieve a named seller profile's refund policy to review return and refund terms before handling customer requests.
Get refund policy. Reviewed native GET /refund_policy; scope: account. Read only; no local effect approval required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private profile label; never inherited credentials, ownership or scope proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; 'Read only' merely repeats it. The added 'no local effect approval required' is a genuine workflow trait not present in the annotations, which earns modest credit.
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 compact and front-loads the operation. However, the internal jargon ('Reviewed native GET /refund_policy', 'local effect approval') is implementation boilerplate that is not useful to an agent selecting the tool.
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 simple, single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition is essentially complete; an agent has enough to invoke it. It falls short only on routing guidance against the sibling update tool.
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 100% and the single 'account' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'scope: account' does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema states.
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 lead sentence 'Get refund policy' is an exact restatement of the tool title, which fits the rubric's tautology case. The trailing 'Reviewed native GET /refund_policy; scope: account' adds only internal endpoint trivia and does not differentiate it from the sibling update_refund_policy.
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 guidance on when to call this versus update_refund_policy or any other sibling, no prerequisites, and no scenario framing. 'scope: account' hints at a filter but not at usage timing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.