Find duplicate and stuck vouchers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "Read-only." It adds real behavioral substance by defining the matching heuristics that determine what counts as a duplicate, though it says nothing about how large the scan is or what the response contains.

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 tight sentences: the detection scope comes first, the read-only safety note last. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description could say more about the shape of the duplicate report, but it covers both detection modes, the read-only guarantee, and the parameters are fully schema-documented. Adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description still adds meaning to dayWindow by explaining the duplicate-matching purpose behind the day tolerance, going slightly beyond a pure restatement.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Detect") and resource (vouchers), and spells out the exact duplicate criteria (same document number, or same supplier + amount within a few days) plus a second check for Entwurf/offen vouchers. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like sevdesk_list_vouchers or sevdesk_diff_receipt_folder, which enumerate or compare rather than detect duplicates.

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 intent (find duplicate and stuck vouchers) implies when to reach for it, but the description never states when not to use it or names an alternative sibling for adjacent tasks such as reconciling transactions or listing vouchers. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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