factures_impayees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Liste' implies a read-only query, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, authentication requirements, or return format. The parenthetical statuses add useful context but do not disclose behavioral traits beyond the operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise with no unnecessary words, earning its place entirely.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly identifies what is returned (unpaid invoices with specified statuses). Missing is an explicit statement about being read-only or any confirmation of the output nature, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the burden.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage vacuously. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 a specific verb 'Liste' (lists) and a specific resource 'factures impayées' (unpaid invoices), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'factures' (all invoices) and 'facture' (single invoice). The parenthetical statuses further clarify the scope.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'factures' or 'marquer_facture_payee'. There is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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