List payment vouchers

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already inform the agent that the tool is safe, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the return data (summary context), but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or data scope. The description adds some value beyond annotations but not extensively.

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, making it concise. However, it is overly terse and lacks structure. It could be front-loaded with the main action and then elaborated with list-specific filters. The current form is acceptable but not optimal.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should help understand the return structure. It mentions 'summary context' but does not specify fields. With 9 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining key parameters. However, the description only generically mentions 'context' without describing any of the 9 parameters (e.g., status, voucherId, dates). The agent has no guidance on how to use these filters effectively, which is critical for a list tool.

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 tool name and title clearly indicate listing payment vouchers. The description adds that it includes context about requisition, spend, item, and proof summary, distinguishing it from other list tools. However, it does not fully differentiate from the get tool (limu_get_payment_voucher) or explain the scope of the list.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this list tool versus alternatives like limu_get_payment_voucher or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, common filters, or avoidance scenarios.

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