banque_projection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: the projection is day-by-day, returns specific computed fields, and refuses to project on an unobserved balance rather than fabricate a date. It does not discuss errors, side effects, or permissions, but the read-only projection behavior is well conveyed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core concept and no filler. Every sentence adds value: computation, outputs, use case/alternative, and a refusal edge case.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it names the key outputs and covers the main edge case. It could be slightly more explicit about the `point_bas` result and exact output shape, but it is sufficient for a small projection 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining the computation ('today's balance minus certain upcoming due dates, day by day') and the notion of the floor (`franchissement` when balance drops below it), which enriches the schema's minimal field descriptions.

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 identifies a projection tool: it crosses today's balance with upcoming certain due dates and rolls it out day by day. It names concrete outputs (`franchissement`, `point_bas`, movement details) and distinguishes itself from an after-the-fact bank threshold alert.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: to answer 'will it pass before the end of the month.' It also contrasts itself with a threshold alert that only warns after the fact, though it does not name sibling tools or describe exclusion cases beyond that contrast.

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