unifi_list_vouchers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by documenting return fields and clarifying that activatedAt means when first guest used it, plus a concrete stale-voucher filter use case. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise field list and a practical filter example. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given a complete input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly. It explains the resource scope, key return fields, and a common filtering use case, so nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents all four parameters and the filter example. The description reiterates the filter usage but adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('hotspot/guest-portal vouchers at a site'), and the detailed return-field list makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like unifi_get_voucher or unifi_list_sites. It is unambiguous and informative.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to list vouchers at a site and to bulk-find stale vouchers via filtering. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like unifi_get_voucher for single-voucher lookups, but the list-vs-get distinction is strongly implied.

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