Create Fortnox Voucher

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the critical balance requirement ('sum of debits must equal sum of credits'), the minimum of 2 rows, and the return value ('created voucher with assigned voucher number'). The example further clarifies expected behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, important note, args, returns, and an example. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy. The 'IMPORTANT' callout emphasizes the critical balance rule, and the example is compact yet complete.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested rows, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It covers the return format, all required parameters, the balance constraint, and includes a realistic example. No output schema exists, so the explicit return description is especially valuable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section mostly repeats schema info, but it adds a concrete example showing how to structure rows with debit/credit and descriptions, which clarifies parameter semantics beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new voucher (manual accounting entry) in Fortnox.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_voucher, list_vouchers, and list_voucher_series, and the parenthetical clarifies it is for manual entries, not automatic invoice booking.

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 phrase 'manual accounting entry' implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., fortnox_bookkeep_invoice for automatic bookings). No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided, so usage context is only implicit.

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