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. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the voucher is not found), or describe any side effects. The disclosure is minimal and leaves important behavior to inference.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the key output details. There is zero wasted verbiage, and the sentence is immediately clear.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It specifies that entries and attachment names are included, which is useful, but it omits information about error cases, pagination (if any), or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple get, the description is sufficient for basic use but lacks robustness for an agent to anticipate edge cases.

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 schema has one parameter, voucher_id (integer), which is self-explanatory by name. However, the description does not mention this parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema; the agent must rely on the parameter name and type, which is adequate but not enhanced. With a single obvious parameter, the lack of description is a minor gap, but it does not fully compensate.

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 a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (one voucher), and adds detail about what is returned (all its entries and attachment names). This clearly distinguishes it from list_vouchers, which presumably returns multiple vouchers. The use of 'one' explicitly signals a single-object retrieval.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single voucher, which differentiates it from list_vouchers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct guidance on when to prefer get_voucher over list_vouchers or other siblings.

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