get_hotspot_voucher

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the identifier formats are helpful, but the description does not explicitly state absence of side effects, permission requirements, or not-found/error behavior. For a simple getter this is a moderate 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 compact and well structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by concise parameter guidance. Every line earns its place, and the most important ID-provenance information is clearly highlighted.

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?

For a single-record lookup with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. All three required parameters are meaningfully documented, and the source of voucher_id is explicitly identified, leaving little ambiguity for an agent invoking this tool.

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 compensate, and it does. It explains that host accepts a console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format; site accepts a name or ID; and voucher_id should come from list_hotspot_vouchers. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare string 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 first sentence clearly states the tool retrieves a single hotspot voucher by ID, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_hotspot_vouchers, create_hotspot_vouchers, and delete_hotspot_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?

The description gives practical workflow guidance: voucher_id is required and should be obtained from list_hotspot_vouchers. It implies this tool is for single-voucher lookup by ID, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer list_hotspot_vouchers over this tool.

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