factures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It only states that it lists invoices and can filter; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose and key optional filters. It is concise with no unnecessary words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and three optional parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the returned list contains (beyond 'factures'), does not mention the limit parameter's existence or default, and does not clarify how this tool relates to siblings like 'factures_impayees' or 'facture'. The ambiguity around 'émises' could confuse an agent selecting between tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that the tool can be filtered by 'statut' and 'chantier' (mapping to statut and chantier_id), but it does not address the 'limit' parameter or provide any detail on accepted status values. Partial compensation, but incomplete.

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 uses the specific verb 'Liste' (lists) and identifies the resource as 'factures émises' (issued invoices), which clearly indicates a listing operation. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'factures_impayees' or 'facture', but the scope is reasonably clear.

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?

The description mentions optional filtering by status or site, which implies the tool is used for browsing invoices with those filters. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'factures_impayees' for unpaid invoices or 'facture' for a single invoice.

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