List Voucherlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral disclosure beyond stating it performs a search/filter across voucher types. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or side effects, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarifying the tool's purpose, meeting high standards of conciseness.

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 the lack of an output schema and 11 parameters, the description effectively summarizes the tool as a universal search for voucher types. Combined with thorough schema descriptions and annotations, the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

All 11 parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches and filters across all voucher types in Lexware, listing examples like invoices and credit notes. This verb 'search and filter' paired with 'voucher types' distinguishes it from create/get/delete siblings, making its purpose specific and actionable.

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 identifies itself as 'the main way to find' vouchers, implying primary usage for search. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like `lexware_get_voucher` or `lexware_list_vouchers`, it provides clear context for when to use it, though exclusion guidance is absent.

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