list_vouchers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, although the verb 'list' may imply it. Since no safety or permission information is mentioned, transparency is limited.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a critical conditional behavior, making it easy to parse and remember.

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?

For a simple list operation, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what is listed, the required date range, and the optional state filter with its default behavior. No missing context that would prevent correct usage.

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?

Four of five parameters have meaningful descriptions: date_from and date_to include format hints, state gives the integer code meaning, and supplier clarifies it is a partner id. The account parameter lacks any description, preventing full coverage of the parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly states the action (list vouchers), the scope (date range), and the default behavior (ledger vouchers unless a state is given). The verb and object are specific enough to immediately distinguish this from other list-type tools in the sibling set.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., get_voucher, list_accounts). The note about state is a behavioral detail, not a comparative usage guideline, so the agent is left to infer when this is the right choice.

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