luceed_poklon_bonovi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states whether this is a read-only lookup, what permissions or serial number are required, or what the response contains (validity vs. balance, format). For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the resource and purpose before the action note. The 'Actions: stanje' fragment is slightly redundant with the schema enum but costs little.

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 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It hints at what is returned (validity/balance) but omits the read-only nature, authentication needs, and result shape, leaving real gaps for an agent.

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 both 'action' and 'serijski'. The description adds nothing beyond restating the single enum value, so the baseline 3 applies; no format or lookup-key guidance is contributed.

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 names a specific resource ('Gift vouchers') and its purpose ('validity / balance'), which is more than a tautology. However, the operation verb is only implied and the sole action 'stanje' is left untranslated/unexplained, so an agent must infer that this retrieves a voucher's status. No sibling differentiation is offered.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The 'Actions: stanje' note merely echoes the schema enum rather than guiding selection. It could be confused with the many other state/balance siblings like luceed_bodovi or luceed_stanje_zalihe.

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