create_receipt_voucher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only describes the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or system behavior. For a creation tool, it does not state that it records a transaction in TallyPrime or any consequences.

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 extremely concise: a one-line intro followed by a bullet-like list of args. Every sentence adds useful information, and the structure allows quick scanning.

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 output schema exists but the description does not explain return values, which is acceptable per guidelines. However, for a creation tool, it lacks context on what happens after voucher creation (e.g., confirmation, error handling). The parameter explanations are complete, but overall context is minimal.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides concise explanations for each parameter, including date format (YYYYMMDD), roles of bank_ledger and party_ledger, and optional narration. This adds value beyond the schema titles.

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 it creates a receipt voucher with the parenthetical 'money coming in', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_payment_voucher. The verb 'create' and resource 'receipt voucher' are specific and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'money coming in' implicitly guides when to use this tool versus other voucher creations (e.g., payment voucher for money going out), but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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