bos_voucher_validate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'validate' without indicating side effects, return type, or error behavior (e.g., does it modify state? What happens on invalid code?). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 extremely short (3 words), which is concise but at the cost of necessary details. It front-loads the verb but omits critical information. A sentence-length description would be more appropriate for this tool's context.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description should at least hint at return value (e.g., boolean, error object) or typical validation outcomes. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient context to interpret the result.

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 only parameter 'code' is described as 'voucher code' in the description, but no additional meaning is added beyond the schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), and the description does not specify expected format, length, or example values. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 action (validate) and the resource (voucher code). It distinguishes from siblings like bos_cart_apply_voucher or bos_voucher_create, which focus on other operations. However, it lacks detail on what validation entails (e.g., existence, expiry).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't indicate it should be used before applying a voucher, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent relies solely on the verb 'validate' for context.

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