kdy_get_voucher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the read-only nature ('只读') and the HTTP method (GET). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., invalid ID), or response format. For a simple read operation, this is a moderate level of transparency, but it misses some behavioral context an agent might need.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the endpoint for reference. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention what the response contains (beyond 'details'), likely error cases, or authentication nuances. Since annotations are absent, an agent might need more context to handle edge cases, but the core operation is clear.

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 required string parameter (voucher_id) with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does indicate that the tool operates 'by id', which implies voucher_id is the identifier, but it does not explain the format, constraints, or where to obtain the ID. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type and required flag.

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 queries voucher details by ID, specifying the verb (query), resource (voucher details), and the identifier. The 'by id' scope distinguishes it from list-type siblings like kdy_list_voucher, and the read-only note reinforces its non-mutating nature. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kdy_list_voucher or kdy_get_invoice. The usage is implied by the 'by id' phrasing, but there is no guidance on preconditions (e.g., having a voucher_id) or exclusions (e.g., when not to use). The agent must infer the appropriate context.

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