firestarter_vouchers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the exact status values (active, scheduled, expired, exhausted, paused) and disclosing that cost-to-date is included, going beyond the bare annotation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every clause adds information: status enumeration, cost tracking, and example queries. No padding or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return values (status and cost) and usage intent. The sibling tools make the broader context clear, and nothing important appears missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('vouchers') and adds meaningful scope: status and cumulative cost. It also gives concrete example questions ('what discounts am I running?', 'how is SUMMER20 doing?'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling create/update voucher tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to answer...' with two example queries, providing clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_voucher/update_voucher, but the list-only nature is implied strongly enough for an agent to know when to select this tool.

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