Get Voucher

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'Get' which aligns but provides no additional behavioral details such as error handling or response format. It does not contradict annotations.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. Every element (verb, resource, identifier) is necessary and front-loaded.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is sufficient for a get-by-ID operation. Sibling tools show clear resource differentiation, so completeness is high.

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 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Voucher ID'. The description adds 'by ID' but no further meaning. With high coverage, baseline is 3.

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 'Get a specific voucher / cash receipt by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('voucher / cash receipt') with clear identification method ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like siigo_get_vouchers (plural, listing all) and other specific get tools.

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 usage when you have a specific ID, and the sibling tools provide context for alternatives (e.g., siigo_get_vouchers for listing). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention any exclusions.

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