Review payment voucher

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

Annotations already indicate write behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds workflow context (management-approved state, finance marks paid separately) but omits details about decline effects, dryRun behavior, or confirm requirements.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. Every word adds value, clearly conveying the tool's action and its place in the workflow.

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?

While the description covers the primary action, it lacks details on return values (no output schema) and optional parameters (dryRun, confirm, reason) that are critical for proper usage. The 6-parameter complexity is not adequately addressed.

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 but does not. Parameters like dryRun, confirm, and reason are left unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose and required format.

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 clearly states the tool approves or declines a payment voucher, with a specific verb ('Approve or decline') and resource ('submitted payment voucher'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'limu_mark_payment_voucher_paid' by explaining the workflow separation.

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 implies when to use (for the approval step) and notes that finance handles payment separately, guiding the agent to the correct sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention prerequisites like voucher state.

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