List Refunds

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description simply restates the listing behavior without adding extra context like pagination, rate limits, or what happens with no results. It is adequate but not enriched beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise—only one phrase—which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add valuable information without becoming verbose. Still, it earns a 4 for no waste.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important details such as default behavior (e.g., ordering, maximum results), return format, or pagination cursor usage. It is incomplete for a comprehensive understanding, even with strong schema descriptions.

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 each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List refunds with optional filtering,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like create_refund and retrieve_refund, but could be more specific about the scope (e.g., all refunds) or default behavior.

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 when to use the tool (to list refunds with filters) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Among many list siblings, no differentiation is given.

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