refund_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Process refund' implies a financial mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether refunds are reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the order isn't completed. This is inadequate for a tool with potential financial impact.

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 perfectly concise at five words, front-loading the core purpose ('Process refund') without any wasted language. Every word earns its place, making it efficient for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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's complexity (financial mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, error conditions, or usage boundaries, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about how to invoke it correctly.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'amountInDA' relates to 'currency') or provide additional context about parameter usage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added.

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 verb ('Process refund') and resource ('for a completed order'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'confirm_order' or 'register_order' that might also handle order-related operations, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance by specifying 'for a completed order', which implies this tool shouldn't be used for pending or cancelled orders. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives (e.g., vs. 'confirm_order'), or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps in usage context.

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