Deeplink to Voucher

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a link, confirming the non-mutating nature, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements or rate limits.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It is front-loaded and every word is necessary.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description implicitly defines the return value as a link. Combined with one well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is fully sufficient for a simple, non-mutating deep-link tool.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter (voucherId) with 100% description coverage via 'Voucher UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'direct link to a bookkeeping voucher', and the context 'in the Lexware web app'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_voucher' (retrieves data) and 'update_voucher' (modifies), as well as other deeplink tools by specifying 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose as getting a direct link for viewing/editing, which implies it is used when UI navigation is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the clear purpose and differentiation from data-retrieval tools provide sufficient guidance.

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