pennylane_list_lettered_lines

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful domain context by explaining that 'lettrées' means reconciled/matched lines, but it does not disclose additional traits like pagination behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by a clarifying use case, and no unnecessary repetition is present.

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. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers parameters fully. The only minor gap is that the description does not mention pagination behavior, though the schema implies it.

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 schema already documents limit, cursor, and line_id. The description echoes the required line_id ('avec une ligne donnée') but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, 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 ('Liste') and resource ('lignes lettrées') tied to a given line, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like pennylane_list_entry_lines or pennylane_letter_lines, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides a clear use case: seeing which payments are matched with which invoices. However, it does not specify when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., list_entry_lines, letter_lines) or any exclusions.

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