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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the operation touches only the status field and returns a success confirmation - information not derivable from the annotations. Permissions and error behavior remain unstated, keeping it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded well with the Overview, but the four markdown sections are heavy for a two-parameter tool and repeat the same idea: the status values and the confirmation are restated in 'What You Get' and again in 'Quick Start'. Content is not wrong, just padded.

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 simple two-field mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the call does, what it changes, and what it returns (a confirmation and the new status). Missing only error/permission context, which keeps 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id, status) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description restates the same enum ('active' or 'inactive') without adding format, validation, or side-effect detail, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('activate or deactivate a voucher') and adds the distinguishing scope constraint 'without updating other fields', which implicitly separates it from the full-update sibling put_vouchers_id. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing from the scope phrase alone.

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 'When to Use' section gives three concrete scenarios (temporary disable, reactivate, status management) that clearly frame the intent. It lacks any explicit when-not-use or named alternative (e.g. 'for full edits use put_vouchers_id'), so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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