play__iade_edilenler

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely valuable operational constraint not present in the annotations: Google only exposes the last 30 days, and older refunds are unavailable via the API. It does not mention pagination behavior tied to the limit parameter.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it lists, why you'd call it, and the hard API limitation. Purpose is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key missing context (30-day window). With no output schema, return shape and pagination semantics remain unstated, but they are largely inferable from the limit parameter, leaving only a minor gap.

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%, so limit, paket_adi and sadece_urunler are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: listing cancelled/refunded/revoked purchases, which is a distinct resource from siblings like play__satin_alma_dogrula (purchase verification) or play__abonelikler. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear triggering context — 'to understand whether you need to revoke the user's access' — which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. However, it names no alternative tool and states no when-not condition, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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