Get Fortnox Voucher

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable context: it specifies that 'financial_year' uses Fortnox sequential IDs not calendar years, and clarifies that the return includes 'all debit/credit rows.' No contradictions with 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 well-structured with a clear opening line, an IMPORTANT caveat, an Args list, and a Returns section. It is somewhat redundant with the schema but stays efficient and front-loads the core purpose. Every section earns its place, though the Args list could be trimmed given schema duplication.

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?

For a read operation with no output schema, the description fully specifies what the agent gets ('Complete voucher details including all debit/credit rows') and the essential prerequisite for financial_year. Combined with the schema's rich parameter descriptions and the annotation set, the tool is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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% and the description's Args section largely mirrors schema descriptions. The only added value is the pointer to fortnox_list_financial_years, but that is already embedded in the schema's financial_year description. Therefore, the description adds no significant semantics beyond the structured schema.

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 starts with a crisp, specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve detailed information about a specific voucher including all accounting rows.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fortnox_list_vouchers (list all) and fortnox_search_vouchers (search) by focusing on a single, fully-detailed voucher.

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 gives an explicit usage prerequisite: 'Use fortnox_list_financial_years first to find the correct ID for your target year.' This is practical guidance that prevents misuse. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_vouchers or list_vouchers, but the 'specific voucher' wording implies the use case.

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