unifi_get_voucher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, what happens if the voucher doesn't exist (e.g., error handling), or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.

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 a single, clear sentence: 'Get a specific hotspot voucher by ID'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary details. This makes it easy to parse and understand quickly, earning a top score for efficiency.

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 tool's low complexity (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks output schema information, and with no annotations, it doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication needs. For a simple read operation, it meets minimum viability but could benefit from more context about the return format or usage scenarios.

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 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('siteId' and 'voucherId') clearly documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with 'voucherId', but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'Get a specific hotspot voucher by ID'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('hotspot voucher'), and identifier ('by ID'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unifi_list_vouchers' or 'unifi_create_voucher', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single voucher rather than listing or creating them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'unifi_list_vouchers' for listing multiple vouchers or 'unifi_create_voucher' for creating new ones, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing voucher ID. Without this context, users might struggle to choose the right tool for their needs.

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