List Voucherlist

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false) fully cover the safety profile, and the description does not contradict them. The description itself adds only scope context (all voucher types) rather than new behavioral traits like response size or cross-type coverage behavior — that detail lives in the parameter docs. No contradiction, annotations carry the weight; solid but unexceptional 3.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, no filler. The second sentence's enumeration of voucher types is slightly redundant with 'all voucher types' from the first, but it does add concreteness and the 'main way' positioning. Efficient overall, though one phrase could plausibly have been spent disambiguating from list_vouchers instead.

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?

For a 14-parameter, paginated, filtering-heavy tool, the rich schema documentation and annotations carry most of the contextual load. However, with no output schema, the missing description of return shape or result behavior is a notable gap. The unaddressed ambiguity with lexware_list_vouchers further erodes completeness — a bit more description could have rounded this out.

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 per the rubric. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema's own parameter docs are rich (wildcards, client-side filtering, 'Implies fetchAllPages', request caps, defaults). The description does not need to supplement; it just also doesn't add anything beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Clear verb ('search and filter') plus resource ('all voucher types') with explicit examples (invoices, credit notes, quotations). It does not, however, clarify how it differs from the near-identical sibling lexware_list_vouchers — the 'main way' phrasing is an assertion of primacy, not a distinction. Clear but lacking sibling differentiation, so a 4.

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?

'This is the main way to find invoices...' is only a weak implication of when to use the tool. With a direct competitor sibling named lexware_list_vouchers, the total absence of an explicit when/why-this-versus-that or any exclusion reasoning is a meaningful gap. There is no naming of alternatives or when-not-to-use — essentially no usable guidance.

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