pennylane_get_supplier_invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds value by enumerating what the detail payload contains (montants, lignes, statut, fournisseur), hinting it aggregates line-level data, but says nothing about auth scope, pagination or error behavior.

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 short sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the return summary. Nothing superfluous.

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-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient on its own; it even summarizes the return contents. Minor gap is the absence of any routing hint to the list or line-level siblings.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('Identifiant unique de la facture fournisseur'), so the schema already carries full meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the id, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Récupère le détail complet d'une facture fournisseur'), clearly distinguishing a single-record fetch from the sibling list_supplier_invoices. It does not explicitly name the alternative, but the verb 'get/récupère' plus 'détail complet' makes the singular-fetch intent 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?

Usage is implied by the 'get one by id' pattern shared with pennylane_get_customer_invoice, pennylane_get_supplier, etc. There is no explicit when-to-use vs list_supplier_invoices or when-not guidance, so the agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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