list_vouchers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses a concrete performance cost (~5 seconds per month of data) and the shape of each returned row (master_id). It stops short of covering truncation behavior when the limit is hit or confirming read-only semantics, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the identifier an agent needs downstream, then the performance caution. Every sentence earns its place and the most actionable constraint is front-loaded after the 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?

For an 8-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, and the critical return field, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is what happens when results exceed the default limit of 200 or the 2000 cap, which affects result interpretation.

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 every parameter (from/to formats, item/ledger contains-matching, search fields, limit default, company fallback, exact voucher_type) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond framing the date range, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List vouchers') plus the scope (date range) and the payload ('with their entries'), which distinguishes it from the single-record get_voucher sibling. It also names the key field returned (master_id), so an agent knows what it gets back without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'keep ranges short' is a real constraint on how to call it, and the master_id note hints at a list-then-mutate workflow with alter_voucher/delete_voucher. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_voucher for a single voucher or list_voucher_types for type discovery.

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