search_vouchers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses matching semantics (exact for voucher_type, substring for ledger and search_term), defaults (company and limit), and optionality of all parameters. It does not contradict any annotation and adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the bare schema.

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 moderately long but well-structured, with the purpose in the first line followed by a clear Args block. Every line conveys useful information without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, all parameters, defaults, and matching behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not discuss error cases or ordering, but these are not critical for a search tool given the output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: each parameter's purpose, format (ISO dates), matching behavior, and default are stated. This far exceeds what the schema provides, making parameter semantics explicit and actionable.

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 searches accounting vouchers (invoices, receipts, payments, journals) and lists the filtering criteria (date range, type, party ledger, free-text). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_voucher (which presumably fetches a single voucher) and financial reports like get_trial_balance.

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 this tool is for searching/filtering vouchers, but it does not explicitly compare with siblings (e.g., 'use get_voucher to retrieve a specific voucher by ID'). It lacks explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, relying on the tool name and parameter list to convey context.

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