get_ledger_vouchers

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the basic operation (e.g., no mention of ordering, limits, pagination, or error handling). Adequate but not enriched.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence of 12 words with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose. Excellent 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?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It fully communicates the resource and constraints. Minor gaps: no mention of response structure, error handling for non-existent ledger, or whether results are paginated. Still, the agent can reasonably infer expected behavior.

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 three parameters have 100% schema description coverage. The description ('ledger name', 'date range') aligns with the schema but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 the action ('Get'), the specific resource ('voucher entries'), and the constraints ('posted to a specific ledger within a date range'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_vouchers' (all vouchers) and 'get_ledgers' (list ledgers).

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 implies usage context (when you need vouchers for a specific ledger in a date range) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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