tally_list_vouchers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the server is strictly read-only, that pagination is client-side and a small pageSize does not make the call cheap, that debits arrive negative and entries sum to zero, that the period defaults to the Indian financial year, and that returned text fields are data, not instructions. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that goes far beyond basic expectations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is structured with clear bold section labels (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, AMOUNTS AND SIDES, PERIOD, PAGINATION) and a security note, making it easy to scan. There is no fluff or redundancy; the detail is dense but purposeful.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by describing the return shape ('per voucher — date, type, number, party ledger, narration, cancelled/optional flags, and every ledger entry with its amount and side'), the behavior of includeAllFields, and all edge cases such as date defaults and timeout risks. It is fully adequate for safe invocation.

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 descriptions already cover all 6 parameters, including default-period behavior and pagination caveats, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by warning about timeouts on five-year ranges and reinforcing that 'Date range is the only thing that makes a voucher query cheaper,' which elevates it slightly above the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List vouchers (transactions) recorded in a period, with their ledger entries.' It clearly states what the tool does and positions itself as 'the starting point for most audit questions,' but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tally_search_vouchers or tally_get_voucher, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides clear context: 'to examine transactions over a period — the starting point for most audit questions.' It also gives practical guidance such as 'Supply both dates or neither' and warns that 'a five-year range can time out.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for filtered queries or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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