create_voucher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the accounting behavior (post debits expense accounts/credits A/P, pay settles from cash), the voucher counter auto-generation, currency fallback logic, and that vouchers rarely use payment terms. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema shows.

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 is well-structured with a brief conceptual intro followed by an Args list. The conceptual paragraph about how vouchers behave like vendor bills is valuable context, though it could arguably be trimmed. The Args section is efficiently formatted with defaults and examples inline. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value.

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?

The 6 parameters are all documented despite 0% schema coverage, and the accounting behavior is explained. An output schema exists but since the description doesn't describe returned values anyway, that's acceptable. The description is thorough for a creation tool - it covers defaults, format, and behavioral semantics. Could mention response/return format but the output schema covers that.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely. It does this excellently - explaining each of the 6 parameters with defaults, fallback behavior (currency defaults to employee's, then book's), format expectations (ISO dates, e.g. '000001'), and conditional logic (voucher_id auto-generates, term optional because vouchers rarely use them). This far exceeds the bare parameter names in the 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 'Create an employee expense voucher' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes it from related tools like create_bill and create_invoice by explaining it's specifically for employee expense reimbursement, which is helpful context.

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 explains the voucher concept well - that it behaves like a vendor bill, with post creating an obligation and pay settling it. However, it doesn't explicitly say WHEN to choose this over create_bill or other alternatives, only implying it through the employee-expense framing.

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