player_voucher

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

The description discloses several important behaviors: values (including negative) are returned unchanged without interpretation, it makes a single logical GET request without auto-fetching continuation pages, array responses are limited to 100 rows and 256 KiB with truncation reported, and oversized records are refused without partial fields. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden and does so well, though it includes a generic statement about 'other declared filters' that is irrelevant given the schema has only one parameter.

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 paragraph with multiple sentences, and some content is arguably superfluous for the tool's simplicity. The note about 'other declared filters are forwarded as supplied' is misleading given additionalProperties:false and only one parameter. The main purpose is front-loaded, but the description is more verbose than necessary, reducing conciseness.

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 simple input (one required username) and no output schema, the description covers the operation, response limits, truncation reporting, and refusal behavior. It does not mention error handling, authentication, or return value structure, but these are not critical for a read tool with a single parameter. The description is reasonably complete for its scope.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on the 'username' parameter beyond implying it identifies the player. The single parameter is self-explanatory by name and type, but the description adds minimal semantics – it doesn't specify formats, constraints, or how the username maps to the upstream voucher data. This is adequate for a simple parameter but not exceptional.

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 function: 'Read the upstream voucher balance and available figures for one player.' It specifies a verb (Read), a resource (voucher balance and available figures), and a scope (one player), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many other player_* sibling tools, though the voucher focus is unique enough to distinguish it in practice.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement – if you need voucher data, you'd use this tool – but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like player_balances or player_archived_balances. No exclusions or conditional recommendations are provided, so an agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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