pennylane_create_fec_export

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

Annotations declare it non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, but say nothing about execution model. The description adds the key operational trait that the export is asynchronous and requires polling for a 'ready' status, which is genuinely new information. Permissions or retry behavior on repeat calls are not addressed.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource and its async nature front-loaded before the routing instruction. Every phrase carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the create-then-poll workflow adequately. It could note whether overlapping periods cause duplicates, but overall an agent has what it needs.

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%, with both period_start and period_end carrying format guidance (YYYY-MM-DD), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only implies date-range scoping via 'pour une période' and adds no syntax or boundary details beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crée un export FEC') with the scope ('pour une période'). This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling pennylane_get_fec_export, which retrieves rather than creates.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up tool and the condition that triggers it ('utilisez pennylane_get_fec_export ... une fois le statut ready'), which is a clear usage path. It does not, however, distinguish this FEC export from the sibling pennylane_create_agl_export.

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