player_voucher

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers extensively: values are returned unchanged including negatives, one logical GET request, no auto-pagination, local row/size limits, truncation reporting, and refusal of oversized records. This goes well beyond what the schema alone provides.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the behavioral caveats are organized, but the description is wordy for a one-parameter read tool and includes boilerplate about 'other declared filters' that do not exist in the schema. Every sentence does not clearly earn its place.

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?

The description covers input, pagination, limits, truncation, and refusal behavior thoroughly for a simple read tool with no output schema. It could be more explicit about the response structure beyond 'voucher balance and available figures,' but the essential calling context is present.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain the username parameter. It only ties the tool to 'one player' and makes meta statements about required inputs and forwarded filters, while the schema has no declared filters. The username's accepted format or error behavior is not described.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the upstream voucher balance and available figures for one player.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and its single-player scope, and the 'voucher' resource differentiates it from the many player_* siblings.

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 first sentence states the use case explicitly: read voucher balance/available figures for one player. It does not name alternative tools or provide when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear.

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