List vouchers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating that voucher rows are NOT included, which tells the agent the payload is header-level only. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but it improves on the annotations rather than restating them.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary capability is front-loaded ahead of the disambiguation note. Every sentence earns 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-shape burden by saying rows are excluded, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The remaining shortfall is the several unexplained filter parameters, which is a minor rather than blocking gap for a list tool.

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 only 40% (max and series documented; from_date, to_date, financial_year not). The description compensates partially by naming date range and series as the two filter modes, but leaves financial_year and the default/ceiling behavior of max unaddressed. Adequate but with real gaps.

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?

It names the resource (vouchers/verifikationer) and the two retrieval axes (date range or series), and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_voucher and the report tools. The only weakness is that the verb is implicit in the tool name rather than stated, but an agent can still tell exactly what this returns.

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?

It routes the agent to alternatives with conditions: get_voucher for a single voucher and the report tools for totals. That is explicit selection guidance. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use rule (e.g. what to do when you need rows or account-level detail).

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