list_vouchers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses scoping ('active company', 'date range') but not return content, ordering, pagination, whether voided vouchers are included, or the complete set of valid voucherType values.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence presents the verb and object first, followed by voucher-type examples and scoping. Nothing is wasted; the trailing 'etc.' is slightly vague but acceptable.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description captures the intent but not the return structure or full voucherType value set. It also references the 'active company' without explaining how the agent determines or selects it, though that may be a broader tool-context concept.

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 baseline is 3; each parameter already has a description in the schema, including date formats and a voucherType example. The description adds little beyond pointing to a date range and five example voucher types, which is consistent with the schema but not additive.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a concrete resource ('transaction vouchers') and enumerates common voucher types (Sales, Purchase, Payment, Receipt, Journal), making the purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling such as get_day_book or get_ledger, though the voucher-type scope largely separates it from list_companies, list_ledgers, and create_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 usage context is implied: use this when vouchers in the active company within a date range are needed. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., get_day_book, get_ledger, create_voucher) are given, so the agent must infer the right choice.

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