get_voucher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. 'Get' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not disclose permission/auth needs, behavior when identifiers are missing or ambiguous, company-context effects, or what 'in full' returns beyond the vague phrase.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical packs alternative identifier combinations efficiently without obscuring the main purpose.

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 has 7 parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 57% schema description coverage. The description identifies lookup keys but does not explain return values, company context, include_xml behavior, or error/ambiguity handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking it.

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?

The description adds useful retrieval-key semantics, especially the combined date + voucher_number + voucher_type alternative, which the schema does not explicitly group. With 57% schema description coverage, the schema already documents several parameters, and the description does not add meaning for company or include_xml beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one voucher in full.' It clearly distinguishes single-voucher retrieval from list_vouchers implicitly, but does not explicitly name the sibling alternative or contrast with get_master.

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?

It lists accepted lookup keys (master_id, guid, or date + voucher_number + voucher_type), which implies how to invoke the tool. However, it does not say when to use this versus list_vouchers or get_master, nor does it state prerequisites or preferred workflow beyond 'master_id' being preferred in the schema.

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