List vouchers (Belege)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Read-only' and lists returned fields. It omits important behavioral details like pagination behavior (despite having a limit parameter), ordering, default filters, or authentication 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of one well-structured sentence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not contain filler or redundant information.

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 and annotations, the description should be more comprehensive. It lacks information on default limit, pagination hints, ordering, and whether both incoming and outgoing vouchers are always listed. Such gaps reduce completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the returned fields but does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. No parameter details are added, so the score remains at baseline.

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 action (list), the resource (vouchers), and the key fields returned (date, supplier, gross/net/tax, status, VAT treatment). It also identifies the tool as read-only, distinguishing it from mutation tools like sevdesk_create_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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as sevdesk_list_invoices or sevdesk_get_voucher. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions are given.

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