Get payment voucher

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, establishing safety. The description adds value by disclosing the content of the return (items, proofs, linked requisition details). However, it does not elaborate on additional behaviors such as pagination, error states, or permissions.

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 sentence of 11 words, directly stating the tool's purpose. No extraneous information is included, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return content but omits explanation of the input parameter. Combined with existing annotations, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation for the 'voucherId' parameter beyond its name and type. The agent must rely entirely on the parameter name and schema constraints, which lack semantic context such as what constitutes a valid voucher ID or how to obtain it.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('one payment voucher'), and specifies what is included (items, proofs, linked requisition details). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools by indicating it retrieves a single 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as limu_list_payment_vouchers. The agent must infer from the name and parameter that this is for retrieving a specific voucher by ID, but no explicit context or exclusion criteria are given.

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