Three tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation and error handling. get_order and refund_order have minimal descriptions (18-27 chars, below 20-char threshold). approve_payment lacks clarity on what 'fits within' means. No parameter descriptions visible for any tool. No output schemas documented. No error guidance or recovery paths. Tool names follow verb_noun pattern (positive), but descriptions are too terse to guide LLM selection effectively.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Example: 'get_order: Retrieve a single order by ID. Returns order details including amount, status, and creation date. Use this to verify order state before refunding or approving payments.'
• Add parameter descriptions for all inputs. Example: 'order_id (string): The unique order identifier, e.g. ORD-2024-001. Required.' and 'amount (number): Refund amount in USD. Must be > 0 and <= original order amount.'
• Document output schemas for each tool. Example: 'get_order returns {order_id, amount, status, created_at, customer_id}. refund_order returns {refund_id, status, amount, timestamp}.'
• Add error handling guidance. Example: 'refund_order fails with 'amount_exceeds_cap' if amount > 100.0. This is user-fixable, suggest a lower amount or contact support.'
• Clarify approve_payment logic with an enum or constraint. Example: 'Returns {approved: true|false, reason: string}. Approved only if amount <= budget. If denied, reason explains why (e.g. insufficient_budget, amount_too_large).'
• Add idempotency hints. Example: 'refund_order is idempotent, calling twice with the same order_id and amount returns the same refund_id without double-charging.'

Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.

• Relies on Logging (deprecated) - log to stderr or use OpenTelemetry