feegow_list_vouchers

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The only behavioral hint is the HTTP GET method in the description.

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?

Single sentence with category and endpoint, no fluff. However, it includes redundant HTTP path that could be omitted, slightly reducing 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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. Missing details on pagination behavior (page/limit), response structure, and expected effect of each filter. Agent likely needs additional context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, simply referring to 'filters informados' generically.

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 'Lista' (list) and resource 'vouchers', and specifies it filters based on provided criteria. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_voucher' and 'cancel_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cancel_voucher or create_voucher. The description merely states functionality without exclusion criteria.

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