get_voucher_types

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly implies a safe read operation. The description adds that it retrieves 'configured' types, which hints at the data being pre-existing in Tally. However, it doesn't mention what happens if no company is selected or if Tally is empty. With annotations providing the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, compact sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and provides clarifying examples. Zero wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with good annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and what data is returned. The only gap is not mentioning that you typically need set_company first, but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the annotations cover safety.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema already fully documents that no parameters are needed. The description adds value by explaining what the result contains (voucher types) with concrete examples, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 ('voucher types'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by providing examples (Payment, Sales, Journal). It differentiates it from get_vouchers which returns voucher records rather than types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_vouchers or other configuration tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., company must be set via set_company) or when you'd need voucher types before creating vouchers.

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