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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds the underlying API endpoint (GET /Voucher) and domain meanings for status codes, but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource. Each clause adds useful domain context or endpoint information with no wasted wording.

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 10-parameter, all-optional list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the critical enum semantics while the schema handles the remaining filters. It could mention return/pagination behavior, but the readOnly annotation and schema cover most operational needs.

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 would be 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what status codes 50, 100, and 1000 mean, while also reinforcing the C/D credit_debit semantics. It does not cover the other filter parameters, but the added enum meaning is meaningful.

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 (List) and resource (vouchers), and clarifies that vouchers are receipts and incoming/outgoing bills. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list_invoices, list_credit_notes, or get_voucher, so it falls short of 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 status and credit/debit code semantics, but does not say when to choose this tool over siblings like list_invoices or get_voucher. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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