issue_broker_voucher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., creation of a record that can be queried with get_broker_issued_voucher), required permissions, or any destructive aspects. The description is minimal.

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?

The description is short and has a one-line summary followed by an Args block, which is concise but not well-structured for an LLM. Every sentence is present, but the Args section is redundant with the schema and adds no value.

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?

Given the complexity (5 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the voucher, the return value, or any validation constraints. An agent would have insufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 5 required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description merely lists parameter names in a docstring format without adding meaning beyond the names. For example, 'spec_code' and 'amount' are not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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 states 'Issue a broker voucher/award' which is a clear verb+resource but is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_broker_issued_voucher or provide any context on what issuing entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to issue vs. retrieve). There are no mentions of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The description lacks any usage context.

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