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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it discloses what data is returned, explains first-opener claim semantics, and warns that the batchId is the only handle for the links.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted language. The returned contents are front-loaded, followed by the critical handling constraint and claim semantics.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned contents and key operational behavior. Minor omissions such as error behavior for an invalid batchId keep it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by emphasizing that batchId is the only handle on the links and must be retained, which goes beyond the schema's note that it comes from buy and quote_vouchers.

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 identifies the resource as a paid voucher batch and enumerates the returned data: claim links, claimed/delivered status, expiry, and refunds. It lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieve' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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 gives operational handling advice—keep the batchId and hand links privately—but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as order_status or verify_receipt. No exclusions or selection criteria are provided.

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