export_fec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output format (tab-separated text), and the required accounting permission, but says nothing about how the file is delivered, whether the operation is read-only, or any size/period 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 compact lines, front-loaded with the resource and format, then the audience and prerequisite. Nothing is padded, though the phrasing could be slightly tighter.

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 simple one-parameter export with no output schema, the description covers what is produced and the permission requirement, but omits how the result is returned and what the year value must be, leaving gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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?

The single parameter 'annee' has 0% schema description coverage. The description only refers to 'l'année', which merely restates the parameter name and adds no format, calendar-vs-fiscal-year, or range guidance, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: exporting the FEC (Fichier des écritures comptables) as a tab-separated text file for the year, and adds the intended recipient (the accountant). It is clearly distinct from narrower siblings like journal_ventes or journal_achats, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 states the purpose ('à remettre à l'expert-comptable') and the prerequisite permission, which implies when to use it, but never contrasts it with the related export/report siblings (journal_ventes, journal_achats, recap_tva) or says when not to use it.

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