facture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Détail' implies a read operation and 'lignes comprises' tells the agent line items are included, but there is no statement of permissions, behavior for an unknown id, or account scoping beyond the vague phrase 'dans le compte'.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the parameter provenance placed in a parenthetical. Every clause earns its place; only the nested parentheses slightly reduce readability.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the meaning and origin of the id, and what the response contains (invoice lines). What is missing — error behavior and auth expectations — is modest for a simple lookup.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that the parameter is the invoice number taken from the `id` field returned by the invoice list, which is far more useful than the bare `Facture Id` integer field. It stops short of restating the type or format constraints.

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 names a specific action ('Détail d'une facture'), the resource, and the scope ('lignes comprises'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the list tool by stating the id comes from 'la liste des factures' (sibling `factures`). An agent can tell at a glance that this fetches one invoice in full rather than listing 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?

Usage is implied: call this after obtaining an id from the invoice list to inspect a single invoice. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no exclusions (e.g., versus `factures_impayees` or `marquer_facture_payee`), so the routing is left to inference.

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