Get Vouchers

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

No annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. "List" implies a safe read and the enumerated fields hint at return content, but it says nothing about scope, filtering, pagination limited by limit, or whether results are tenant-scoped. A 3 reflects the minimal implication of read-only listing without explicit confirmation.

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?

One efficient, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Slightly terse given the missing behavioral and parameter 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is only minimally complete for a list tool; it omits filtering, scope, and limit semantics.

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 0% for the single limit parameter, so the description could have compensated but does not mention it. The description adds no syntax or default details beyond what the schema shows, leaving the baseline of 3 for a one-param tool.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (gift vouchers) and names the returned fields (amount, sender/recipient, status). It is distinguishable from neighbors like get_coupons, but does not explicitly contrast with that closely related sibling.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent gets no signal about how this differs from get_coupons or whether filters exist; it must infer usage entirely.

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