Search Vouchers

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the search is performed client-side, that financial_year is not a calendar year, and that max_vouchers limits the scan scope. These details help the agent anticipate performance and correctness issues. The annotations already establish read-only/idempotent, so the description complements rather than repeats.

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 IMPORTANT, Args, Returns, and Examples sections, and the financial-year warning is front-loaded. However, the Args list essentially repeats the schema verbatim, adding redundancy for a 10-parameter tool. Still, the examples and warning earn their place, making it reasonably concise.

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 (10 params), the description covers the core purpose, the critical financial_year caveat, scanning limits, and illustrative examples. It lacks explicit output shape details, but no output schema exists and the return is described as matching vouchers. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section largely duplicates the schema descriptions (e.g., financial_year warning is identical). It adds no new parameter semantics beyond examples, so no uplift beyond baseline.

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 opens with 'Search vouchers by description text,' a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like fortnox_list_vouchers (list all) and fortnox_get_voucher (single voucher). The additional 'client-side text search' phrase further clarifies the tool's unique role.

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 provides important usage context, including the warning that financial_year uses sequential IDs and instructs users to 'Use fortnox_list_financial_years first.' It also gives examples of typical searches. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over fortnox_list_vouchers or exclude other alternatives.

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