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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the endpoint is public and requires no authentication, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention error handling, rate limits, or response format. The 'check' wording implies safety but doesn't confirm it.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds a useful fact (public endpoint) without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, and authentication requirements. It lacks details on output format, but this is likely acceptable for a status check tool. The absence of explicit read-only disclosure is a minor gap.

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% with clear descriptions for both 'code' and 'voucher_id'. The description's mention of 'by code or ID' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic depth. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Check voucher status by code or ID.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('voucher status'), and the two lookup methods distinguish it from sibling tools like use_voucher or create_gift_certificate.

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 use for read-only status checks but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The public endpoint note provides context but no exclusionary guidance. Usage is inferred from the clear purpose.

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