Find duplicate and stuck vouchers

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

The description states 'read-only', disclosing that the tool does not modify data. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, data load, or whether it aggregates across all users. The disclosure is minimal but accurate.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core detection logic and adding 'read-only' at the end. Every word is necessary and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 4 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not specify default behavior (e.g., default date range) or the return format (e.g., list of voucher IDs or details). This leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions detection criteria but does not elaborate on parameters like 'from' or 'dayWindow' beyond what the schema already 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 clearly specifies the tool detects vouchers booked twice by same document number or same supplier+amount within a few days, and vouchers stuck in draft/open status. It uses specific verbs 'detect' and states 'read-only', distinguishing it from listing or creation tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like sevdesk_list_vouchers or sevdesk_get_voucher. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it.

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